\ \\ 
AK AS \ ix 
RG . 

UK AN 
SS 


Ze ti, LEE 
ee LLL 


RY 
A 
WS \\ \ 


A \\ 
WN \\\ LAY \ 

SA \ ANS 

WY \ 

\ 


tii 


eee 


\ << 
<< 


Lr, 


tj 


sts tcililiddestiablileis 
ties 


GLE 


tj 


ZZ. 


tt; 


SS SS N 
WMO MAH" |d|d|d||d—||’II A AD 





tj 


\\ 


A fi A 
John Augustus William 
1862-1937. 


Theological studies 








oi 


y 

¢ 

Ey eA 
, 








4 Ts M hed 5 
PPT eae 
Te ape sy aay (i ub Mh 
ad See 





THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
In 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


httos://archive.org/details/theologicalstudi0Ohaas 


THEOLOGICAL 
STUDIES 


Dedicated tt HENRY EYSTER JACOBS 
on the occasion of his Eightieth Birthday 


ay. 


J. A. W. HAAS, H. OFFERMANN, A. T. W. 
‘STEINHAEUSER, J. C. MATTES 
AND C. M. JACOBS 





PHILADELPHIA, PA. 
THE UNITED LUTHERAN PUBLICATION HOUSE 
1924 


CopyricHT, 1924; By 
THe BoarD OF PUBLICATION OF 
Tue Unrireno LutHEeRAN CHURCH IN AMERICA 





MabDE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


REVEREND PRECEPTOR 


IN GRATEFUL RECOGNITION OF THE SERVICES 
YOU HAVE RENDERED THE CHURCH DURING 
THE MANY YEARS THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN 
YOU, ‘AND AS A TOKEN OF DEEP PERSONAL 
APPRECIATION THIS LITTLE VOLUME OF 


THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


HAS BEEN DEDICATED TO YOU BY THE WRITERS 





CONTENTS 


I 
BSPRPMPS OLE SPAINGY oPSOC LET Vik ack terest casas ssdkcan cen svceanaoeccccetee 7 
J. A. W. Haas 
II 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. ...........ccccccesescsesces 34 
; H. OFFERMANN 


III 


THE NEW TESTAMENT IDEA. OF FAITH..............000ce00e0 87 
A. T. W. STEINHAEUSER 


IV 
THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST ...........000 114 
J. C. MATTES 
V 
THE AUTHORITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE IN THE EARLY 
PETE LMS ve pli ans ape | ala el EL DSO EAR Hae 195 


4 
C. M. JACOBS 





THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 
JoHn A. W. Haas 


One of the peculiar defects in American life is the 
tendency to decide problems and to answer questions 
purely upon practical considerations. There exists a 
prejudice against all theory and doctrine. Because of 
the lack of thorough search after the foundations of 
life in truth there is so much uncertainty, so much con- 
tradiction and so much drifting. One outstanding ex- 
ample of this is the vacillation between the right of the 
soul and the claim of society. Both in private and pub- 
lic utterance and action men gravitate to and fro be- 
tween the demands of the soul and the call of society. 
What is needed is not merely a philosophical effort to 
determine the right relation. It is necessary especially 
for the Christian to endeavor to ascertain the mind of 
the Spirit in the Scriptures about the soul and then to 
draw the proper inferences for practise and life from 
the doctrine of the Word. This will give sureness and 
clearness to our attitudes and decisions. We shall then 
not be cast about by every wind of false practical error 
which is unconscious of the principles involved. After 
the problem of the soul has been clarified it will be pos- 
sible to approach the question of society and the re- 
lationship of the soul to it. Shall it be soul versus 

7 


8 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


society, or society versus soul, or shall there be a just 
balance? 

In stating the problem of soul and society it might be 
inferred that this was the usual question of the indi- 
vidual and society. When put into the terms of opposites 
it would be defined as the problem of individualism or 
socialism. But all such conclusions are unwarranted. 
They rest upon the identification of the soul with the 
individual, and substitute a philosophical term for a 
scriptural word. An examination of the usage of soul 
in the Bible and particularly in the New Testament will 
lead us to a clear idea of the just Christian conception 
of the soul and its difference from the philosophical 
notion of the individual. 

The fundamental passage upon which the Biblical 
idea is of the soul is built up is found in Genesis 2: 7. 
‘‘And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the 
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of 
life; and man became a living soul.’’ The origin of the 
soul is traced back to the life of God. The picture of 
the breathing of life into man is found not only in the 
Hebrew word ‘‘Ruach,’’ but also in the Greek and Latin 
terms for soul. The soul is the gift of the life of God. 
‘‘Living’’? and ‘‘Soul’’ are synonymous. There is no 
indication of the individuation of the life of God in man. 
Man is a living soul through the breath of God. This 
statement determines the origin of man’s soul but not 
its separateness and independence. It rather stresses 
the dependence upon God. Further light is thrown upon 
this dependence through the conception of Paul, who 
draws this contrast: ‘‘And so it is written, The first 
man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was 
made a quickening spirit.’’ (I Cor. 15:45). The living 
soul it not the life-giving spirit. It is natural and has 


THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 9 


no life in itself, but is derived from the spirit. The 
spirit is the permanent essential life, the soul is the 
derived life. 

There is no identification of soul with spirit in the 
careless manner in which we often use the terms inter- 
changeably. The whole man is designated by Paul 
as spirit, soul and body (I Thess. 5:23). The spirit 
has the precedence; and it is followed first by the soul 
and then by the body. The life-given soul is distinct 
from the life-giving spirit. The author of Hebrews 
(4:12) conceives the Word of God as dividing asunder 
soul and spirit. He sees them in the unity of life and 
yet as separate. The power of the Word of God pen- 
etrates so deeply that spirit and soul stand apart. There 
is no confusion as to soul and spirit in the New Testa- 
ment. The terms are words of evaluation in the light 
of religion, and not distinctly formulated technical 
terms of descriptive psychology. We must enter into 
the broad apperceptions of faith to understand them. 

Apparently there is some psychological color in the 
injunction to love God with all the heart, the soul and 
the mind (Matt. 22:37). In Mark (12:30) we find the 
same statement with the addition: ‘‘With all thy 
strength.’’ But a variation occurs in Mark 12:33. It 
reads: ‘‘With all thy heart, and with all thy under- 
standing, and with all thy soul, and with all thy 
strength.’’ It seems evident that the heart stands for 
the emotional in man, the mind or the understanding 
for the intellectual, and the strength for the active grow- 
ing out of the volitional. But what then does the soul 
mean? It has no accurate psychological meaning, but 
is the generic total for the life of man. We must not 
look in these great religious truths for any fixed 
scientific delimitation, for the broadly human is meant 


10 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


which is permanent in all scientific changes and is there- 
fore fit to convey permanent religious truth. 

There is a usage of soul which makes it equal to liv- 
ing being. If we read passages like Ex. 12:15; Rom. 
2:9, 13:1; Acts 2:41, 48; 7:14; I Peter 3:20; Rev. 
16:3, 18:18, we cannot arrive at any other conclusion 
but that soul stands for the whole human being as a 
living entity. The emphasis is upon man as living and 
in no wise as a living individual. The idea of a separate 
life is purely incidental and not the central idea of this 
usage. 

The strongest accent in the word soul is, however, 
put upon life as inward. The promise to the servant 
of God, quoted in Matthew 12:18 from Isaiah, of the 
gift of the Spirit, is motivated thus: ‘‘In whom my soul 
is well pleased.’’ The very life of God, His very being, 
is designated as soul. It is this spiritual meaning of 
soul which clearly separates it from the body. Man is 
not to fear those who can only destroy the body, but 
Satan who can ruin soul and body. (Matt. 10:28). 
There is a supremacy of the value of the soul, the vital 
inner existence, which makes it to rank far above the 
perishable body. Still greater is the worth of the inner 
life over against the whole world of things. (Matt. 
12:26; Mark 8:36). Any selfish attempt to preserve 
mere life as over against the life found in Christ, any 
effort to save the soul and not lose it in order to win it 
in Jesus, is futile. (Matt. 16:25). These high estimates 
are not the emancipation of the modern individual with 
his own desire and will, but the magna charta of the 
inner life valued in its divine aspect. The soul is given 
the highest worth as inner life not in any intellectual or 
esthetic sense, but as the life of religious ‘thought, 
aspiration and action with its moral responsibility. This 


THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 11 


conception of soul is adumbrated in Lev. 5:17 in the 
words: ‘‘If a soul sin.’’ But its first great declara- 
tion is found in Hzekiel 18: 20, ‘‘The soul that sinneth, 
it shall die.’’ As against the guilt of heredity the guilt 
of life in the guilty one is stressed. This truth does not 
abolish the results of sin from generation to generation 
as a fact, but it removes inherited guilt and respon- 
sibility. The moral value of; soul—life is rescued and 
not its bare individuality. The individuality is second- 
ary to the moral valuation. We have no brief here for 
the individual as an individual, but only a law of the 
moral right for the soul. 

The soul is frequently regarded as the life of inward 
religious and spiritual nature. This places it far above 
the body and its needs. The fine sarcasm of Jesus in 
portraying the man, who planned to build larger barns, 
as saying to his soul: ‘‘Soul, thou hast much goods laid 
up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink and be 
merry’? (Luke 12:19), rests upon the foolish confusion 
of what the soul, the inner spiritual life, needs. It can- 
not be satisfied with the outward pleasures and delights 
of the body. The soul is a far different life than that 
of sense. The expression ‘‘save your soul’’ (Jas. 1:21; 
5:20) or ‘‘salvation of your souls’’ (I Peter 1:9) has 
become very common, and it is due to this that the mis- 
conception has arisen that salvation of the soul means 
rescue of individuality. The charge has frequently been 
brought that care for the salvation of one’s soul is 
naught else but disguised selfishness which does not 
eare either for the temporal or eternal welfare of one’s 
neighbor. But this whole misapprehension is due to 
the failure to note that the soul is man’s highest spir- 
itual part, and that its salvation, effected by God’s love, 
and received by faith in Christ, eventuates in genuine 


12 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


love to God and man. A saved soul and selfishness are 
contradictions which can only be avoided, as they must 
to be true to the whole conception of salvation, if the 
idea of the soul be freed altogether from the implica- 
tions of modern individualism. 

The high spiritual valuation of the soul is found all 
through the New Testament in many different forms 
and connections. The praise of Mary: ‘‘My soul doth 
magnify the Lord’’ (Luke 1:46) cannot be understood 
except the soul be the life kindled by the spirit. When 
Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane prays: ‘‘My soul 
is sorrowful unto death’’ (Matt. 26:38; Mark 14: 
34) He feels the power of death attacking His inmost 
life in its totality. The same sense for soul obtains 
when Jesus prays: ‘‘Now is my soul troubled; and 
what shall I say?’’ (John 12:27). When Simeon tells 
Mary that a sword shall pierce her soul (Luke 2: 35) he 
thinks of the highest religious hopes and expectations 
of her inner life. What part of man’s life but his inner 
religious strivings will find rest when he comes to Jesus, 
takes the yoke upon him and learns of the Christ (Matt. 
11:29). In the tribulation of the last days men can 
have patience if they possess their souls in it. (Luke 
21:19). The endurance of patience is within the deep- 
est, secret places of our spiritual life. 

The same import is given to the idea of the soul when 
those that rule in the Church are to watch over the souls 
(Hebr. 13:17), and when hope is spoken of as the anchor 
of the soul (Hebr. 6:19). The obedience to the truth 
purifies the soul (I Peter 1:22). It can overcome the 
fleshy lusts that war against it (I Peter 2:11), but it 
needs the Shepherd and Bishop of souls. (I Peter 
2:25). It is the soul which is righteous and is vexed 
by unlawful deeds (II Peter 2:8). When men are led 


THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 13 


astray and beguiled it is because they have ‘‘unstable 
souls.’’? (II Peter 2:14). The real prosperity is the 
prosperity of the soul. (III John 2). Even the vision of 
those who are kept by God after their persecutions for 
the last day is the vision of souls. (Rev. 6:9; 20:4). 

Another and very interesting light is cast upon the 
Biblical usage of soul in the description of the early 
Church in Jerusalem, when Luke writes: ‘‘And the 
multitude of them that believed were of one heart and 
of one soul.’”? (Acts 4:32). The oneness of heart is 
the binding power of common Christian love which 
united the first Christians. But there was a deeper 
unity than that apparent in the exhibition of love. It 
was the oneness of inner life in Christ toward whom 
believers turned in the actuality of one interrelated and 
unified soul. There was a real communal soul into which 
the separate believers were fused. We in our day of 
disjointed Christianity have no conception of this one- 
ness of spiritual life and truth. It was the greatest 
created social unity and it was brought about by the 
Spirit of God. Natural social unities have no such ties. 
Unities created through education, culture, art, science, 
literature of which men boast are in a different class. 
The soul of the Jerusalem church was vital and actual. 
It dare not be turned into a mere figure of speech. If 
this fact is accepted then we realize that the soul as God- 
given life is not merely focalized in separate beings but 
also in the social form of the Church. 

The result of our examination of the Biblical usage 
of soul has led us to the following conclusions: 


(1) The soul is life imparted to man by the Spirit 
of God, but it does not make man a part of God. 


14 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


(2) Sometimes the whole living man is called soul 
and consequently life and soul are at times used 
synonymously. 

(3) The soul can be focalized in the individual but 
it does not essentially mean individuality. 

(4) The most frequent sense of soul is the inner 
spiritual life directed toward God. 

(5) The soul is a fact of religious evaluation found 
by faith and not a descriptive fact of scientific 
psychology, but this makes it none the less real. 

(6) The soul can be applied to the inner unity of 
the life of the Church created by the Spirit. 

From this summary it becomes evident why soul can- 
not be identified with self or individuality. There are 
at least three great contrasts between soul and self 
which appear in the comparison of individualistic sys- 
tems of thought with the scriptural idea of soul. 

First, in the usual individualistic philosophy there is 
no definite assertion of God as the creator and pre- 
server of life, absolute and infinite in nature. The most 
widely spread modern individualism is the hypothesis 
of pluralism. According to it the ultimate centers of 
existence are entities material, mental and neutral. The 
world is simply a collection of separate minute par- 
ticles. Of these man is one. God is only somewhat 
higher but He is finite, the great companion, the in- 
visible king. All centers of existence, all minute en- 
tities are simply given, but they are not created, nor 
do they depend upon God as does the soul for its origin 
and continuance. While God is not denied He is vir- 
tually annulled in His real creative and preservative 
power and infinity. It is true that the earliest indi- 
vidualist of the nineteenth century, the German thinker 
Leibnitz, does affirm God as creator and makes Him 


THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 15 


the infinite monad. But there are millions of finite 
monads thoroughly independent in their existence. God 
winds up the clocks of the universe and they run par- 
allel with exactitude, but He, the maker, abandons the 
world to itself. To maintain the independence of the 
finite individualities God is denied as the actual pre- 
server and governor of the universe. But this denial 
infringes on God’s creative power as continuous. Wher- 
ever God is limited as being in the world He made there 
He is limited in His creative power. Consequently even 
Leibnitz injures the right conception of God as abso- 
lute creator. Creation, preservation and governance of 
the world by God belong together. The limitation or 
denial of any one of these functions finally affects all. 
Consequently even the best form of individualism in 
human thought injures the true conception of God. It 
is altogether different from the idea of the soul which 
depends upon God for its creation and continuance, and 
longs to return to God, not to be absorbed into Him, 
but to live in His presence. 

The second conflict between individualism and the 
soul is found in the fact that the commonly accepted 
individualistic theory has no place for man’s sin. It 
regards the individual in his mere existence as right. 
We are only to develop our individuality and to live 
out what is in us as potency and possibility to be jus- 
tified. In many modern experiments in education, par- 
ticularly with the youngest children, this individualism 
is the underlying thought. The child is supposed to 
find itself and to choose the right things like the calf 
finds its food. All that the child needs is guidance and 
not correction, and even the guidance must be indirect. 
The scriptural idea of the soul does not imply that the 
soul though made by God remained perfect. It must be 


16 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


saved because it is lost. The lower life must be sur- 
rendered to keep the true life. The soul is in a constant 
battle against sin and needs the Saviour because it does 
not make and save itself as modern individualism 
claims. The teaching of the soul in the Bible altogether 
contradicts the natural perfection and development 
theory of modern individualistic thinking. 

The third difference between individualism and the 
soul consists in the fact, that the individual or self is 
independent and its relation to society is very second- 
ary, while the soul is not inherently anti-social in its 
idea. It is in this distinction that we need the most 
careful discrimination, because it has been obscured so 
often. According to individualistic thought society is 
a mere addition of individuals in certain relations with 
each other. There is no real social life and thought 
apart from individual existence. The world of men is 
an atomistic structure loosely held together. No such 
separative conceptions lurk in the idea of the soul. The 
soul as such is not necessarily individual. The life com- 
ing from God finds lodgment through His gift in in- 
dividuals, but His life also dwells in the social form of 
the Church in a very special way through the presence 
of His Spirit. To deny this is to deny the inner life 
of the Church and to make it a mere collection of be- 
lieving individuals. There is no room then for the 
action of the Spirit of Truth upon the whole body of 
the Church. If we conceive of the divine life as found 
only in the self we cannot really maintain the Church in 
its full value. But the Spirit that brooded upon the 
face of the deep in the creation of the world also made 
the Church in its beginnings of one soul. 

The idea of the life of the Spirit in the Church is the 
connecting link between the soul and society. But it is 


THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 17 


also necessary to see how far the modern thought of 
society is implied in the New Testament. It is evident 
that the present form of the social outlook is not found 
in the Bible. Just as little as we can quote scripture for 
the conception of individuality, so little can it be cited 
for society which means the interrelationship af men. 
There is no philosophic defense of the links that bind 
us to a family and a nation, and no explanation that 
we could not develop without the social inheritance of 
language, culture, tradition, custom, law and other 
similar social media. Nevertheless the social concept 
is not wanting. 

The fundamental Christian attitudes and virtues, 
faith, love and hope are not possible in their fulness 
without creating social bonds. While faith is the trust 
of a soul in Christ it unites a believing soul with others 
who hold the faith, and finds expression in a common 
confession. Faith is not only the reliance of an indi- 
vidual upon God, but it is always creative of social re- 
sults. It helps to make a social form. Love lives not 
only from man to God but from man to man. It is the 
great outcome of faith and the primary virtue of the 
Christian life that regards others. Christianity of the 
pure New Testament type rests the only efficient social 
life upon love as applied to all social relations. A sound 
society can only be brought about where love obtains. 
There can be no successful social theory and no com- 
fortable social life without the religious conception of 
love and its moral application. The Christian hope 
seems at first to be only the anchor of one soul but in 
reality hope is just as common as faith, and it needs the 
contact and warmth of social relation as does faith. 
Hope is also our hope and becomes the stronger as we 
- realize its connective and binding power. We cannot 


18 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


therefore escape the social complex as soon as we 
thoughtfully consider what faith, love and hope mean 
and effect. 

The New Testament brings to our consciousness the 
fact that the Church is a living social form. It is a real 
body (Eph. 4:4), and actual organism and nof a self- 
constituted society. For this reason the believers are 
one soul because there is one life of Christ and of the 
Spirit, and one God and Father, in the Church through 
the one faith. When the Church is compared to a tem- 
ple (Eph. 2:20 ff.), the idea is not that of an organiza- 
tion artificially built up, but the thought is that of a 
growing and cemented unity of souls fused in love and 
resting upon the living cornerstone, Jesus Christ. In 
the Church we have to do with a social reality, a rock 
structure in history, not made by man nor destructible 
through him no matter what he does. This inner, per- 
manent social unity of spiritual life is necessary to the 
individual. Into it he is born in the newness of life 
in Christ. We are not baptized to receive the divine 
gift simply as individuals, but we are baptized into one 
body. (I Cor. 12:13). Our new birth through water 
and the spirit is incorporation into the living body of 
Christ, the Church. We are grafted into a social living 
unity, and we are not simply taken into an organization 
by vote. The latter procedure is external, but baptism 
is a process of life joining us to Christ and the Church. 
The same social life-process is present in the Com- 
munion. We do not partake of the Lord’s Supper 
merely as individuals who receive the body and blood 
of the Lord for our own forgiveness of sins, but we are 
also, though being many, ‘‘one bread and one body; for 
we are all partakers of the one bread.’’ (I Cor. 10:17). 
The Communion is not only a communion with the body 


THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 19 


and blood of Christ but also with each other. It in- 
creases the unity and inner strength of the Church. 
While it is a confession of oneness it at the same time 
increases the bonds that unite believers in faith and love 
and hope. We often fail to realize this underlying social 
ideal in the Church and the sacraments, but it is clearly 
present. Its foundation is in the notion of life, and thus 
it reaches back to the concept of the soul which is es- 
sentially life. 

There exists in the teaching of Jesus one term which 
modern interpreters have endeavored to interpret 
largely if not altogether in a social sense. It is the term 
Kingdom of God, or kingdom of heaven as reported by 
Matthew. Apparently the idea of the Kingdom of God 
was in common usage in Christ’s day and expressed 
some ideal as democracy does with us. The Jews con- 
stantly expected the unrealized kingdom to come and to 
be fulfilled. It meant a new age, a golden period, of 
political power, preéminence and independence; a new 
social order of perfection and happiness. Its coming 
was fastened to the hope of the great deliverer, the 
anointed King, the world Jew and yet the outstanding 
nationalist. But it would be wrong to derive the ideal 
of Jesus from these hopes of His times. They were 
external and supposed to be effected through human 
leadership and effort even though God was not denied 
a share. The teaching of Jesus was in conflict with 
these ruling tendencies and opposed them. He took the 
prevalent idea of the kingdom and gave it a new con- 
tent and a new force. Consequently we must study it 
in His own words which were not colored by His age. 
He is in His times but not of them. 

What is the central idea of the Kingdom of God in 
the mind of Jesus? Many passages describe the con- 


20 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


ditions of entrance into the kingdom, and give its qual- 
ities and outline, its history and hope; but what is the 
real starting point for its development? It seems best 
to find the key to the meaning of the Kingdom of God 
in the Lord’s Prayer. The petition: ‘‘Thy kingdom 
come’’ is followed and apparently explained by the 
prayer: ‘‘Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.”’ 
(Matt. 6:10). It is interesting to note that in the 
parallel passage of Luke (11:2) the best manuscripts 
omit the petition for the doing of God’s will. Whether 
this was the earlier form or another form of the Lord’s 
Prayer we do not know, but it at least indicates that the 
doing of the will of God was implied in the desire for 
the coming of the kingdom. We may therefore venture 
to interpret the kingdom as that ideal condition upon 
earth when God’s will is done. The Kingdom of God 
depends upon His will. This makes it His kingdom, 
His realm and rule. But what is to bring about this 
kingdom, is the first question. 

Men cannot enter into it nor begin in any way to ap- 
proach the doing of God’s will without the condition of 
repentance. The very first announcement of the coming 
of the kingdom was a call to repentance. (Matt. 3:2; 
4:27; Mark 1:15). The attitude of the heart of men 
was to be one of sorrow for their past failure to do 
God’s will. The call was not only to the individual, 
but also to different classes of society. (Luke 3:10). 
There was demanded a change of heart in the direction 
of individual responsibility and of social duty. “With- 
out the realization of sin, the transgression of divine 
law, it was utterly impossible for the new age to begin. 
But the call to repentance was immediately connected 
with the request for faith, (Mark 1:15). Faith was 
to accept the gospel, the good news of the kingdom. No 


THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 21 


qualification of the gospel is more frequent than the 
gospel of the kingdom (Matt 4: 23; 9:35; 10:7; 13:19; 
26:14; Mark 1:14; Luke 4:48; 8:1; 9:2, 11, 60; Acts 
8:12; 19:8; 20:25). The first and great purpose of 
Jesus was the glad announcement of the actualization 
of the kingdom by the way of faith. But faith was to 
be created through the message of the kingdom, 2. e. 
the gospel. It was therefore not accidental that Jesus 
began His teaching about the kingdom in parables with 
the parable of the sowing of the seed and the require- 
ment of its reception in the right soil of the heart. 

The message of the kingdom has no political end nor 
purpose. Jesus could therefore tell Pilate with all hon- 
esty that His kingdom was not of this world (John 18: 
36) when He was accused. There was no word nor act 
of Jesus that could have any political meaning, and not 
even His entry into Jerusalem was capable of such a 
construction. The whole ideal was spiritual. It was 
this lack of spiritual conception of the kingdom which 
made it so difficult for Nicodemus to understand the 
teaching of the new birth. Jesus maintains that it is 
impossible to enter the kingdom except one be born 
again of the water and the spirit. (John 3:3,5). There 
must be a totally new life through repentance and faith, 
a life wrought by God. The God that gave the soul 
must through the same Spirit create the twice-born life. 
No mere reform or change of attitude that does not 
proceed from an inner, actual new life can bring us into 
unity with the divine will and establish the Kingdom 
of God upon earth. Whatever individual or social change 
is to be wrought cannot come from without or by human 
resolution. It must be the result of a new inner life. 

The first and prime character of the Kingdom of God 
when realized in men is righteousness. Nothing in all 


22 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


human life is so essential as righteousness. Without it 
all else is vain, but to those possessing it all other things 
shall be added. (Matt. 6:33; Luke 12:31). There can 
be no seeking of the kingdom which is not the desire for 
righteousness. Upon it rest individual life and social 
order, and through it God’s will is fulfilled, but this 
righteousness must be genuine and dare not consist in 
mere external observances and in a mechanical, out- 
ward keeping of the law. (Matt. 5:20). It is an utter 
mistake to hope that the kingdom will come through any 
human effort and scheme of restriction, laws and 
ceremonies. Beginning from within it must remain 
within (Luke 17:20, 21). No abstention from meat 
and drink, no religious taboo, is its evidence. It has its 
source in inward ‘‘righteousness, and peace, and joy 
in the Holy Ghost.’’ (Rom. 14:17). The mystical gift 
of righteousness will produce the right life. Con- 
sequently no one who is addicted to any sin can inherit 
the blessings of the kingdom and be a member of it. 
(I) Cor. 6:93; Gal 5:23) Eph: 5::5)2))Chevorder ofthe 
kingdom of righteousness demands that its leaders be 
instructed so that they can guide men through both the 
old way and the new. (Matt. 13:52). But those in 
the old way are not in the kingdom, except there be 
entire newness of life. This makes even the least in 
the kingdom greater than John the Baptist who was the 
greatest. prophet. (Matt. 11:11; Luke 7:28). And 
while God’s Spirit brings the kingdom it is needful for 
men to press toward it as though with force and violence. 
The law and the prophecies end with John the Baptist, 
and a new condition and a new life prevails. (Matt. 
11:12, 18; Luke 16:16). 

The first but not exclusive program of the kingdom is 
revealed by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. The 


THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 23 


initial beatitude is for those who are poor and righteous. 
The limitation of their outward resources must be ac- 
companied with poverty of spirit. (Matt. 5:3 cf. Luke 
6:20; Jas. 2:5). It is in keeping with this requirement 
that such fear is expressed in Jesus’ later teaching, lest 
the rich in worldly goods may lose the kingdom. (Matt. 
19:23; Mark 10: 23 ff.; cf. Luke 16:19). It is neces- 
sary, so teaches the Lord in the Sermon on the Mount, 
through the new righteousness to keep the least of the 
commandments (Matt. 5:19); and blessing and hap- 
piness belongs to those, who are ready for actual right- 
eousness to suffer persecution. (Matt. 5:10). All 
society is salted through those in the kingdom and kept 
from decay. (Matt. 5:13). They are the light in the 
darkness of the world. (Matt. 5:14). All the old com- 
mandments are kept in their inner spirit and not ac- 
cording to the letter. Hate and anger are avoided for 
they are the source of murder. (Matt. 5:21 ff.). Lust 
of the eye before any action is the beginning of adultery. 
(Matt. 5: 27 ff.). These laws are kept from within, and 
there is no effort to camouflage the oath. (Matt. 5:33 
ff.). Life is to be controlled by love, forgiveness to- 
ward enemies, overcoming of hate, non-resistance over 
against violence, willingness to help one’s neighbor in 
need without hope of returns. (Matt. 5:38-48). While 
these injunctions are to be exercised first from indi- 
vidual to individual there lies in them also the vision of 
a perfect society. In it there is to be no unjust judg- 
ment of men, no boastful almsgiving, no hypocrisy, no 
love and anxiety for worldly needs, but love of God, 
genuine charity, true, continuous, earnest prayer, real 
fruitfulness of life in holy action and not in idle words. 
(Matt. 6, 7 cf. I Cor. 4:20). This is a marvelous pro- 
gram which would create an entirely new society and 


24 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


a social order without friction and evil. Of the same 
nature with this first program is the ideal of humility, 
honesty, and child-like simplicity which Jesus commends 
in the example of children. (Matt. 18:1 ff.; 1:14; 
Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16, 17). 

The individual ought to seek the kingdom as the most 
precious thing; it is the greatest treasure, the price- 
less pearl. (Matt. 13:44, 45). Its obligations depend 
upon the varieties and measure of the gifts that God 
has given to men, but all can and must bring some re- 
turns in a religious and moral life, and multiply their 
endowments. (Matt. 25:14 ff.; Luke 19:11 ff.). But 
individual gifts and duties cannot obscure the fact that 
men are together in the kingdom and have social con- 
tacts and relations. Although in the parable of the 
vineyard men as individuals are paid in the evening, 
the whole day they labor together. (Matt. 20:1 ff.). 
In the marriage feast the king inspects his guests one 
by one, and yet they are called not merely singly but 
ina group. (Matt. 22:2 ff.). The wheat and the tares 
grow in one field and interlace until the harvest. (Matt. 
13:24 ff.). All of these pictures show that the kingdom 
has a social side and that the teaching of Christ is not 
only directed toward individuals. The social aspect is 
also present when Jesus foretells how the Jews lose the 
kingdom and the Gentiles enter in. (Matt. 8:11, 12; 
Luke 13: 28, 29). 

The ideal life will not come quickly and the fulfill- 
ment of the perfect social order cannot be expected in 
time. We must wait in patience until the end of time 
to eradicate evil. (Matt. 13:24 ff.). But despite the 
constant presence of evil and the impossibility of re- 
moving it from the world, the kingdom grows from a 
small beginning (Matt. 13:31; Mark 4:26, 30; Luke 


THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 25 


13:18), and its power gradually permeates human 
society. (Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:20). It comes as a 
mystery not understood by the mass of men, but still it 
comes and grows quietly like a seed. (Matt. 13:11; 
Mark 4:11; Luke 8:10). 

The kingdom cannot be completed in time because of 
human sin and the power of the Evil One. It will find 
its fruition in the world to come. Then the wheat and 
tares shall be separated and the tares burnt. (Matt. 
13:30); then the worthless fish caught in the net will 
be thrown away. (Matt. 18:49). When the door is 
opened into the kingdom to come those who are pre- 
pared will enter in. (Matt. 25: 1 ff.). The promise of the 
Lord’s Supper will be fulfilled when Christ drinks anew 
of the fruit of the vine. (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14: 25; 
Luke 22:16, 18, 29, 30). This kingdom will be the re- 
ward after all tribulation (Acts 14:22), the great final 
perfection and glory for men who are saved. (I Cor. 
15: 24, 50; II Tim. 4:1, 18; Rev. 12:10). 

The examination of the idea of the Kingdom of God 
has shown us that its central thought is the reign of the 
will of God in individual lives and in society. The 
great fundamental demand is righteousness which is 
defined as a new spirit of love in humility, simplicity, 
forgiveness, liberality, charity, non-resistance, kindness, 
child-likeness, honesty, desire for high ideals of truth 
and honest worship of God. The whole idea for man 
centers in a new life. There is thus an inner connection 
between the soul and society. 

There is no foundation for a social philosophy in the 
teaching of Jesus and his apostles which makes society 
the one fact to the detriment of the individual. As lit- 
tle as the conception of the soul favored modern in- 
dividualism, so little does the Kingdom of God lend it- 


26 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


self as the vehicle of many modern social theories. In 
the Bible there is a just balance between the individual 
and society, and no trace can be found of any one-sided 
individualism or socialism. We cannot call in the teach- 
ing of Jesus to underpin the modern claim that society 
is merely a part of nature, the last result of its pro- 
cess. Such a theory makes righteousness an outcome 
of biological inheritance, and sin the unfortunate effect 
of heredity and environment. Everywhere man’s 
specific spiritual nature, his destiny for moral action 
and for God is presumed in the Scriptures. It opposes 
all biologic conceptions of man in his spiritual aspect 
whether as a self or as society. 

Another modern error finds no place in the New Testa- 
ment, namely the idea that without God through human 
endeavor we can bring about an ideal society. There 
is no possibility of the kingdom without repentance, 
faith and the new life from above. The kingdom will 
never come through human art, literature, science, or 
any human culture even though it be of the highest and 
best type. All humanitarianism, all human _philan- 
throphy, all philosophic moral endeavor cannot create 
the perfect order. The tares will constantly grow and 
the devil will always be at work in the kingdom and 
much more outside of its influences. Utopias have often 
been dreamed about since the days of Plato, but they 
have never been realized. As long as there is sin so 
long righteousness will not prevail, and therefore we 
need the hope of the future. 

In much modern theology there is a tremendous stress 
upon the kingdom in this present life. We are told to 
give up our expectation of the future and to labor to 
make the present better. While all honest moral effort 
growing out of the ideals of Jesus are to be encouraged, 


THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 27 


it is a proud and boastful spirit that claims that it will 
accomplish what Jesus foretold was impossible of ac- 
complishment in time. It is our duty relying upon the 
Christ to further every betterment of men but we must 
not contradict His soberness supported by the facts of 
social life. 

It is an equally mistaken notion that outward im- 
provement of human conditions in health and housing, 
in food and clothing, in commercial and industrial 
relations, and in just economic balance and equability, 
will usher in the kingdom. The kingdom will not come 
with any such observances. If it could come more fully 
it would produce all the changes desired as far as they 
affect man’s soul. But the soul and society will not be 
helped by any external nostrum. Let men continue 
their striving until the wise see that not by might nor 
strength nor human wisdom can we be saved, but only 
through the Christ and His Spirit. 

Many good Christians think that they can produce 
an ideal social condition through the enactment and 
enforcement of law. The kingdom is of the Spirit and 
He can lead us to do God’s will if we will. No law of 
God as law ever made saints but only produced sinners 
through the reaction of human disobedience. If God’s 
law, which was holy, just and good, could not improve 
man what can we expect of defective human law. Law 
is necessary in human government for the restraint of 
evil and the sake of order, but it cannot create 
righteousness. 

The New Testament teaching on the soul and on the 
Kingdom of God valuable as it is in itself, is import- 
ant if applied in our day to a variety of ethical ques- 
tions. The conception of the inner spiritual life of the 
soul, and the idea of the Kingdom of God’s will, are two 


28 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


principles that permit us through their balance to elim- 
inate the extremes of individualism and socialism, and 
to find the right direction for the solution of moral 
perplexities. The two problems in which we can test 
the applicability of the soul and the kingdom very 
clearly are the problems of Sunday observance and of 
prohibition. Both of these questions are prominently 
before us today, and in both even Christians are not 
guided by the moral inferences found in the great 
scriptural ideas of the soul and the will of God. We 
need the clarifying of many wrong notions and actions 
through the clear implications of New Testament truth. 

In the question of Sunday there are two ruling con- 
siderations. Sunday observance is a religious question. 
of the Church and a legal problem of the State. With 
the sphere of the State and what it owes to Christians 
in the protection of their religious rights we are not 
concerned here. There is a distinct duty of the State 
which has enacted laws of rest and forbidden business, 
but we must not confuse this with the religious obliga- 
tion. The State must not hinder nor control the re- 
ligious rights, and the Church must not impose upon 
the State its distinctive religious demands apart from 
the claim to unhampered and unrestricted freedom of 
worship. The confusion of the different functions of 
the Church and State has complicated the problem from 
its religious angle where individualism and socialism 
have already wrought havoc, but we shall adhere purely 
to the religious motive of this problem. 

There is a religious individualism which endeavors 
to settle the Sunday question purely on the claim of in- 
dividual choice. It has adopted the purely selfish 
notion of liberty from sources outside of Christianity 
and then endeavored to change the liberty of the nat- 


THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 29 


ural and uncontrolled man into a religious right but 
without success. To this end it has abused the saying 
of Jesus that the Sabbath was made for man. It has 
taken man in the natural sense and not man as a soul. 
When we understand the supremacy of the soul and its 
great difference from individuality we can no longer 
stand for the individualistic conception of Sunday. We 
know that the soul is the highest gift of God to man, and 
that its needs must be considered. The problem of Sun- 
day in religion is the problem of the necessity of a day 
for the special culture of the soul. Because the culture 
of the soul must have the message of the gospel of the 
kingdom, therefore it must have such arrangements of 
every kind including a time as are necessary for the 
proclamation of the message. This is the true logic 
which does not depend upon any individual views of 
Sunday and what it ought to be, and what one ought to 
do or not do on Sunday. The necessity for the soul to 
know God’s gracious will which brings the kingdom 
cannot be evaded. Both from the point of view of the 
soul and the kingdom the individualistic attitude stands 
condemned. 

But the condemnation of the individualistic position 
does not carry with it the approval of the idea that 
society shall dictate what Sunday must be. There are 
ruling notions among American Christians of a legal 
sort that would control the soul and turn the gospel of 
Jesus into a new law. The legalizing of Sunday has 
been as bad as its liberalizing. The Old Testament has 
been injected into the Christian Lord’s Day. There 
have been social attitudes in the Church that belong to 
the State. The governmental regulation of Judaism has 
been wrongly imported and its nationalism denied. The 
Judaizing Christians have not been willing to adopt the 


30 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


whole law but they have accepted in principle and ap- 
plication the social ideal of the Sabbath which in its 
origin was both religious and national. Unconsciously 
therefore the legal restrictions of an ancient state are 
made religious duties in the world religion of Chris- 
tianity. The idea of the soul is in conflict with the legal 
social notion because its need as life is not met through 
law. It is equally impossible to interpret the will of 
God in the kingdom as law. This will in the kingdom 
must be interpreted as the free doing of what God wants 
in a new life of righteousness and love. The ideals of 
the kingdom are not enactments to be obeyed, but ends 
to be achieved through a life of faith, love and hope. 
The Church which is an aid to the kingdom is not an 
organization to pass laws, but a living organism to 
evidence the life of Christ through His Spirit. It ought 
not be an instrument to make Sunday laws, but only an 
interpreter of the will of God for the salvation of souls. 
Consequently there is no room for any social notions of 
Sunday control that contradict the conception of the 
soul and the kingdom. 

The problem of prohibition can be approached in the 
same way as the Sunday question. There are two ten- 
dencies which from the religious point of view cannot 
lead to a solution. The first is the individualism which 
misconstrues liberty. It claims the right of what is 
known as ‘‘evangelical liberty.’’ True evangelical lib- 
erty refuses to permit the imposition of any law as mere 
law as essential to Christian life, but when applied to 
the right in indulging in spirituous liquors it becomes 
a defense of the desires and appetites of the natural 
man. It is true that we dare not call any gift of God 
evil. There often lurks a hidden condemnation of mat- 
ter in certain prohibition arguments, and one almost 


THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 31 


feels as if there was a repetition of the Manichean 
speculation. jBut while we ought to avoid such at- 
titudes we cannot claim that the freedom of the soul in 
Christ legitimatizes bodily indulgence and furnishes a 
brief for the use of stimulants. It is quite a degrada- 
tion of evangelical liberty to turn it in this direction. 
The fact is that the real motive is not religious but a 
misapplication of natural, personal liberty. The usual 
plea for personal liberty is mostly a deceptive hiding of 
selfishness, which demands one’s own right and pleas- 
ure regardless of the common liberty of men. 

On the other hand the avoidance of individualistic in- 
terpretation of freedom over against prohibition does 
not justify an extreme social position. There are those 
who on behalf of the Church make the abstinence from 
intoxicants a matter of church laws and commands. 
Like the legalistic interpreters of Sunday observance 
they turn the Church into a master over the conscience, 
and ask that it condemn those who indulge even mod- 
erately in liquor. Of course since prohibition has vir- 
tually been made the law of the land the question of 
obedience to the law of the State enters in. But the 
Church has no charter to make itself an agent of the 
State for the observance of any law, even if it is its duty 
to testify against all lawlessness. Whatever social 
forces may help toward prohibition it is not the busi- 
ness of the Church as such to be a prosecutor and en- 
forcer of the law strong as must be its testimony 
against all law-breakers. 

If we turn back to the soul we shall find a right basis 
for our problem. As far as the soul enters our total 
life any food or drink that injures the body is detri- 
mental to our life. The justification of abstinence from 
liquor must be found in the established injury it does 


32 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


to our life. Whatever through a wrong habit and ap- 
petite controls us takes away from our inner soul-life 
of liberty in Christ. The soul as the inward spiritual 
life must be the final determinant in this question. We 
must ask in all external matters affecting the body: Is 
it good for my soul? As souls that are saved for right- 
eousness we dare not make the demand of any bodily 
appetite an essential. In view of the constant risk in 
the use of any stimulant, a Christian must determine, 
whether complete abstinence is not safer for his soul 
than even the most casual and moderate indulgence 
which is often the result of imitation and custom. 

The idea of the kingdom leads us to the same re- 
sult. The will of God to be effected upon earth needs 
the motive of love among men. This motive causes us 
not to do certain things if our example misleads others. 
Much as we may resent the pressure of law upon us, 
we cannot as Christians and children of the kingdom 
escape the appeal of love. If it is proved that the use 
of intoxicants is an injury to individuals and society, if 
it is one of the causes of crime, if it frequently leads 
to insanity, if it destroys thrift, breaks down homes, 
makes labor inefficient and endangers life, then love has 
only one position to take. It will abstain for the sake 
of others even though the abstainer might be in no 
danger. This idea has been well defined by Paul, 
who though he would have no one judge his brother, 
nevertheless counsels: ‘‘It is good neither to eat flesh, 
nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother 
stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.’’ (Rom. 
14:21). This argument becomes all the stronger when 
we remember that Paul really thought that meat 
and drink could be taken even though they were 
dedicated to the gods. Despite the fact then that a man 


THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 33 


was under no restraint if he did not worship the gods, 
nevertheless he was advised to withhold his right if it 
offended his brother or caused him to stumble. The 
principle is that of the kingdom which will never come 
through the maintenance of rights but through the spirit 
of love. And this principle gains in weight when the 
right claimed is not really a right but rather a habit 
of bodily indulgence. Thus the idea of the kingdom like 
that of the soul guides us in the right direction and helps 
us to serve men and regard society without the force of 
commandment or law. 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 
H. OrrerMann 


It was the writer’s original intention to discuss in 
this chapter of our composite volume the New Testa- 
ment doctrine of the person and work of Christ. How- 
ever, upon second thought, and after more mature de- 
liberation, it was found that such a doctrinal discussion, 
in order to be fairly comprehensive and complete, could 
not be compressed within the compass of the limited 
space which had been agreed upon in the general out- 
line of this book. Besides, there seemed to be good 
reasons for adopting a method of treatment which, 
though it may be less dogmatic, will give more freedom 
to discuss certain modern issues and questions which 
have been raised with respect to the person of our Lord 
in recent years, and which at the present time are 
agitating the minds of many Christians. We may not 
be disturbed by the controversy that is raging between 
fundamentalists and liberalists in other quarters of the 
Church than our own. But we cannot deny or ignore 
the fact that modern historical investigation with re- 
gard to the origin, authenticity and contents of the New 
Testament writings has brought about a decided change 
in the theological and religious situation of the world. 
It has thrown fresh light upon things that were formerly 
in darkness, and it has brought to light facts that were 
hitherto unknown. Yet it has not only solved questions 
but also raised questions, and some of the questions it 
has raised are of vital interest to our faith. In view 

34 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 35 


of this present situation with its unrest and confusion, 
with its many misunderstandings and misinterpreta- 
tions, and with the general atmosphere of uncertainty 
and doubt which it has created, the writer believes it 
to be one of the most urgent and pressing needs of the 
day to present to the Christian reader the simple facts 
upon which our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is 
founded. 

In analyzing the present religious situation we are 
confronted with the all-important question: Can we still 
believe in Jesus as our fathers believed in Him? Is 
the Christ of our faith, the Christ of our Confessions, 
to whom we sing our songs of praises, in whom we be- 
lieve and in whom we put our trust for time and 
eternity, whom we worship as the Only-begotten Son of 
the Father, ‘‘God of God, Light of Light, Very God of 
Very God,’’—is this Christ of our faith the same as the 
Jesus of history? 

The answer to this question depends entirely upon 
the New Testament. As we all know, the New Testa- 
ment, properly speaking, is not a book, but a collection 
of books. These books originated in the first Christian 
century, and they are accepted by all Christians and all 
Christian Churches as the rule and standard of their 
faith and life. They occupy therefore a unique place 
in the religious literature of the world, and their chief 
characteristic les in the peculiar relation to the his- 
torical person of our Lord Jesus Christ. The believing 
Christian recognizes in the person and work of Christ 
the final and absolute revelation of God himself. (Cf. 
Mark 1:15; Luke 4:21; Gal. 4:4; Hebr. 1:1; I Peter 
1:20; John 1:17). This gives us at once a firm basis 
for our discussion. Whatever we may think of the New 
Testament writings as literature, their principal re- 


36 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


ligious value for us is determined by the fact that they 
bear testimony to the revelation of God in our Lord 
Jesus Christ. 

The precise relationship existing between the New 
Testament writings and the revelation of God in Christ 
ean be expressed in a threefold statement. 

A. The writings of the New Testament are, first of 
all, the clear and authentic records of God’s revelation 
in our Lord Jesus Christ, and they hold this position 
because they are the literary product of the very time 
and generation by which that revelation was received. 
There may be, and there are, many other books that deal 
with the revelation of God in Christ. But the twenty- 
seven books of the New Testament Canon are the only 
writings in which God’s revelation in Christ has been 
preserved and transmitted to us. 

B. In the next place, the writings of the New Testa- 
ment are not only the records of God’s revelation, but 
because of this very fact they are also an integral part 
of that revelation itself. Essential to the idea of revela- 
tion is not only the note of historicity, but also the note 
of universality. Insofar as God’s revelation centers and 
culminates in the historical person of Jesus Christ, it 
belongs to the past and is limited by the limitations of 
space and time. But the writings of the New Testament 
bring the past down to the present; they make God’s 
revelation accessible to all. As the records of God’s 
revelation in Christ the New Testament writings deal 
with the historical Jesus. But as the means and chan- 
nels through which God’s present revelation is poured 
into our hearts, they bring us face to face with the living 
Christ so that we behold his glory, the glory as of the 
only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. 

C. Finally, in recording, and transmitting to us, the 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 37 


historical facts that constitute the revelation of God in 
Christ, the authors of the New Testament writings also 
become the authentic interpreters of that revelation. 
They state the facts, but their statement of facts is 
always connected with an interpretation by which the 
true meaning of God’s revelation in Christ is made clear 
and safeguarded against all error and misunderstand- 
ing. This interpretation is particularly conspicuous in 
the Epistles of Paul. For example, there were many 
Christians in the early days of the Church who knew 
and could tell the story of the Cross. But it was left to 
Paul to explain in his letters the full meaning of that 
story. Thus Paul became the one great interpreter of 
Jesus. But even the Gospels are not only historical 
records of Jesus’ life, but also an interpretation of His 
life and work. This is pre-eminently true of the Gospel 
of John. But it applies also to the first three Gospels. 
Each of our four Evangelists is not only a reporter but 
also an editor, not only a recorder of facts but also an 
interpreter. 


IT 


From the fundamental position taken by us in the 
statements just made, it follows that the Jesus of the 
New Testament is primarily the Christ of our faith. 
But it also follows that this Christ of our faith is iden- 
tical with the Jesus of history. The question may be 
asked whether there are any other literary sources 
from which our historical knowledge of Jesus is derived, 
besides the New Testament writings. The question it- 
self is of interest, but it is not of great importance, and 
it can be answered in a few words. 

Occasional references to the origin and early history 
_of Christianity are found in the writings of Josephus, 


38 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


the Jewish historian, and of the Roman writers, Tacitus, 
Suetonius, and the younger Pliny. But these references 
give us no information whatever concerning the life and 
ministry of our Lord, and for our present purpose we 
may disregard them altogether. Some value may be 
attributed to the statement made by the Roman writer 
Tacitus, that the founder of Christianity was put to 
death by Pontius Pilate under the reign of Tiberius, 
but that the religious movement inaugurated by Him, 
after it had been suppressed, later revived and spread, 
not only throughout Judea, but also to the capital it- 
self. Such a statement may help to establish the fact 
that the founder of Christianity is not a mythical figure, 
but an historical person. But the reader of the New 
Testament needs no proof to that effect, and the myth- 
ical theory has been abandoned even by the most radical 
scholar who has not entirely lost his mind. 

Of the twenty-seven books of which the New Testa- 
ment Canon is composed, the four Gospels deal ex- 
clusively with the Lord’s life and ministry. But we 
find in the ancient Church a number of similar writings 
which were not received into the Canon of the New 
Testament, and are known as apocryphal Gospels. Most 
of them were designed to fill important gaps in the 
Lord’s life, and especially to furnish information con- 
cerning the early years of His life, on which our can- 
onical Gospels are silent. All these apocryphal Gospels, 
however, although undoubtedly written by devout 
Christians and with no intention to deceive the reader, 
belong to a much later time, contain much legendary 
material and are without historical value. Generally 
speaking, they are a continuation of the Gospel-litera- 
ture, but the intelligent reader will at once notice the 
fundamental difference between our canonical Gospels 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 39 


and those apocryphal writings. Our canonical Gospels 
deal with the historical Jesus, and they know of what 
they are speaking In the apocryphal Gospels pious im- 
agination has supplied the lack of historical knowledge. 

In the Book of Acts (20:35) reference is made to a 
word of Jesus: ‘‘How He said, It is more blessed to 
give than to receive.’’ This saying of our Lord is not 
recorded in the Gospels. Paul, who refers to it in his 
charge to the elders of Ephesus, must have received it 
from oral tradition. It is reasonable to assume that 
many other sayings of Jesus, not recorded in our can- 
onical Gospels, circulated among the first Christians, 
In the writings of the Church Fathers, in variant read- 
ings based upon certain manuscripts of the Greek text 
of the New Testament, and in several Papyrus docnu- 
ments discovered in recent years, similar sayings of our 
Lord are mentioned or referred to. But it is exceed- 
ingly difficult to say whether they are genuine or not. 
Most of them can be traced to genuine words of the 
Lord which are found in the Gospels. The few that re- 
main do not contribute anything new to the facts that 
are already known to us. There is just a bare pos- 
sibility, that new discoveries will bring to light some 
few sayings of the Lord with which we are not yet 
familiar. But it is absolutely safe to say that they will 
not change our conception of the Jesus of the New 
Testament. 


IIT 


In discussing the relation of the New Testament to 
the life and ministry of Jesus, it is well to remember 
that the Gospel is older than the Gospels or than any of 
the other New Testament writings. Jesus Himself has 
left no written records of His own life and work. Only 


40 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


once it is reported of Him that He wrote, and on that 
occasion He wrote ‘‘on the ground.’’ (John 8:8). The 
people referred to Him as a great prophet mighty in 
word and deed. His disciples addressed Him as Master 
or Teacher, but His teaching was not in the form of the 
written word. In summing up His own life work He 
declares, ‘‘The Son of Man came not to be ministered 
unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for 
many.’’ (Mark 10:45). When He called the Twelve 
into His fellowship, He appointed them, ‘‘that they 
should be with Him, and that He might send them forth 
to preach.’’?. (Mark 3:14). He commissioned them to 
be Apostles, and as His Apostles He entrusted them 
with an important mission. But the mission for which 
He called and prepared them, did not include the com- 
mand to write books. In the Gospel of Matthew we find 
many instructions which are addressed to the Twelve 
and which have reference to their future work, but not 
one of those instructions can be interpreted as a com- 
mand, or even as an encouragement to them, to put 
down in writing the things which they had seen and 
heard. Furthermore, after His resurrection, when He 
showed himself alive to His disciples, and gave them 
His final instructions for the work which they were to 
carry on in His name, He did not intimate to them that 
they should write, but He commanded them to be His 
witnesses and to preach the Gospel to every creature, 
and in connection with this command He gave them the 
promise that they should be endued with power from on 
high and should receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 

All our New Testament writings have therefore grown 
out of the preaching of the Gospel. What, then, is the 
Gospel, not in the later sense of the word when this term 
was first applied to the collection of the four written 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 41 


Gospels and still later to each individual Gospel, but in 
the original sense in which the term is used in the New 
Testament itself? 

There can be hardly any doubt, that the word 
‘gospel’? (in Greek evayyeMov.) was originally a mis- 
sionary term, which denoted the message proclaimed by 
the Apostles. It is not certain whether Paul coined the 
term, or whether it was used before him. At any rate, 
Paul uses the term more frequently than any other New 
Testament writer, and he uses it always in a very 
definite sense. A fuller investigation of the meaning 
of the term is not only illuminating and instructive, but 
it will also lead us to the conclusion, that the Jesus of 
the New Testament is the Jesus of the Apostolic preach- 
ing or in other words, the Jesus of the Christian mes- 
sage of salvation. 

The noun ‘‘ evayye’ ov ’’ occurs in the letters of Paul 
more than fifty times, the corresponding verb ‘‘ evay- 
yem’Couar ’’? more than twenty times. It is found in all 
his letters so that we may safely conclude that the term 
was familiar to Paul throughout his ministry. Another 
conclusion which can be drawn from Paul’s usage of the 
term, is that it always refers to his own missionary 
preaching, his ‘‘’«ypuvyua.’’ Outside of Paul’s letters, 
the term is found in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark 
(Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; 26:13; Mark 1:1; 1:14; 
Dota? ooo; 1022957132105 14:93 16:15),’ andihere it 
has reference to the message of Jesus. Luke makes no 
use of the noun ‘“‘ evayye’uov ,’’ but the verb “‘: evay- 
yeru Cour ’’ is found frequently, both in the Gospel and 
in the Book of Acts. The Gospel of John has neither 
the noun nor the verb of the term. In the Catholic 
Epistles the term is found only in First Peter, the noun 
in 4:17 and the verb in 1:12. The writer of the 


a 


42 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


Apocalypse once speaks of ‘‘the everlasting gospel’’ in 
14: 6. 

It has already been stated that the specific religious 
meaning of the term can be traced to the Apostle Paul. 
At any rate, this seems to be a very plausible theory 
since Paul is the first Christian writer who made use 
of the Greek world-language. The word itself means 
‘‘oood news,’’ and it was well known in Hellenistic 
Greek, although not very widely used. However, Paul’s 
choice of this idiomatic Greek expression was probably 
not determined by secular writers or the common speech 
of the people, but by the Septuagint, the Greek trans- 
lation of the Hebrew Bible (cf. II Sam. 4:10; Isa. 40:9; 
Oo ee Ole Tra) 

Of the passages in the Gospels, a few have un- 
doubtedly the full meaning of the Pauline conception. 
This meaning is connected with the use of the term in 
Mark 13:10 and Mark 16:15. It is probably also at- 
tached to Mark 8:35 and Mark 10:29. Of special in- 
terest is the first verse of Mark’s Gospel: ‘‘ Beginning 
of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.’’ It is 
the title of the book, and since ‘‘the Gospel of Jesus 
Christ’’ was already a fixed term which had reference 
to the message of salvation, the author sees in the story 
of Jesus the very beginning of that message. In the 
other passages in which the Evangelists speak of the 
Gospel, the term applies to Jesus’ message of the King- 
dom. The question whether Jesus Himself might have 
been responsible for the use of the term, is of minor 
importance. What is important is the fact that the first 
Christians who were familiar with Paul’s conception of 
the Gospel, applied the same term to the message of 
Jesus. Modern scholars have tried to prove that there 
is a fundamental difference between the Gospel of Jesus 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 43 


and the Gospel of Paul. It is significant that the Eivan- 
gelists themselves have not noticed the difference. They 
are firmly convinced that the Christian message of sal- 
vation and the message of Jesus Himself are essentially 
one. 

The very word which Paul has chosen to express the 
nature and meaning of the Christian message to the 
world, suggests that the Gospel in Paul’s conception is a 
proclamation of facts, and that these facts are the ful- 
fillment of divine promises. This is the viewpoint taken 
Peeaul anvihom: 1: 2-010:163,10:28s' Gal. 2::2-sNph. 
3:6; 6:19, and other places. Our Lutheran fathers 
have therefore correctly stated that the Gospel consists 
in the promises of God, and that every promise of God 
in the Scripture is part of the Gospel. But Paul has 
restricted the Gospel in the narrower sense to the ful- 
fillment of God’s promises in the person and work of 
Christ. The Gospel is more than a promise, it is the 
joyful message that God has fulfilled His promises. The 
author of this message is God Himself (Rom. 1:1; 
1:16; II Cor. 11:7; I Thess. 2: 2, 8,9), and its very heart 
and center is Christ, the Son of God, the crucified and 
risen Lord. 

The central place of Christ in Paul’s preaching of the 
Gospel is very clearly and fully stated by the Apostle 
himself in First Corinthians 15:1 ff. After reminding 
the Corinthians of the Gospel which he had preached 
and which they had received and accepted, he gives a 
summary of the Gospel in the statement, ‘‘that Christ 
died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that 
He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day 
according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by 
Cephas, and then by the Twelve.’’ It is only another 
expression of the same fundamental conception of the 


44 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


Gospel in its relation to the death and resurrection of 
Christ, when Paul speaks of the Gospel as ‘‘the story 
of the cross’’ (I Cor. 1:18), or when he tells the Cor- 
inthians, that while he was with them, he resolved to 
forget everything but Jesus Christ, and Him crucified 
(I Cor. 2:2). 

Of equal importance is Paul’s description of the 
Gospel in the opening verses of his letter to the Romans. 
Here it is stated that God’s Gospel, for which Paul was 
set apart, is the message ‘‘about His Son, our Lord 
Jesus Christ, who was a descendant of David with re- 
gard to His life in the flesh, but who was publicly de- 
clared to be the Son of God in power according to the 
spirit of holiness, which rested upon him, by being raised 
from the dead.’’ The significance of this definition lies 
in the emphasis placed upon the person of Christ as 
the center of the Gospel, especially upon those facts of 
His life which are essential to his redemptive work, 
namely His entrance into human life as the Son of 
David, and His resurrection by which He entered into 
His present life of glory. 

However, Paul was not the founder of Christianity, 
and he was not the first preacher of the Gospel. He was 
not one of the Twelve who had been ealled by the Lord 
Jesus at the beginning of His ministry, and had ac- 
companied Him on His journeys in Galilee and to Jeru- 
salem. In fact, it may be questioned whether he had 
ever seen the Lord Jesus in the days of His human life 
and ministry. This can certainly not be proved by his 
statement in Second Corinthians 5:16: ‘‘Wherefore 
henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though 
we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now hence- 
forth know we Him no more.’’ The whole passage 
(5: 11-21), of which this statement is an integral part, 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 45 


leads us into the very heart of Paul’s personal religion. 
The compelling power in his personal religious life is 
the love of Christ. This love of Christ has manifested 
itself in His atoning death. Christ died for us all, and 
He was raised from the dead that those who live should 
not live unto themselves, but should have their life in 
Him and should consecrate themselves to His service. 
This realization of Christ’s love has brought about a 
complete change in his own life. In fact, every one who 
is thus in union with Christ, is a new being, a new 
creation; there is a new state of things, which has taken 
the place of the old state of things, and in accordance 
with this radical change, his estimate of Christ has also 
undergone a change: it is no longer a knowledge ‘‘after 
the flesh.’’ ' 

There can be no question, that Paul refers here to that 
fundamental religious experience in his life which we 
call his conversion. Nor can there be any question, that 
this experience has not only influenced and determined 
his conception of Christ, but is also the basis of his 
Apostolic authority. Paul at times strongly emphasized 
that authority. Speaking of his privileges as an 
Apostle, he asks the Corinthians (I Cor. 9:1): ‘‘Am I 
not free? Am I not an Apostle? Have I not seen Jesus 
our Lord?’’ His independence and his authority as an 
Apostle rest upon the fact that he has seen the Lord 
Jesus in His heavenly glory. Yet, Paul is firmly con- 
vinced that the heavenly Jesus, whom he saw before the 
gates of Damascus, is identical with the historical Jesus 
who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, 
and buried. His experience before Damascus does not 
wholly belong to the sphere of his inner life. It is not 
a ‘‘vision’’ in the accepted sense of the word, but an 
objective reality. Paul clearly distinguishes it from his 


46 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


later ‘‘visions and revelations.’’ He places it upon the 
same level with the Christ-appearances after the resur- 
rection of the Lord, when he writes to the Corinthians, 
after having given a full list of the witnesses of the 
Lord’s resurrection: ‘‘Finally He was seen by me also”’ 
(I Cor. 15:8). It is only in the next verses that Paul 
then turns from the objective statement of fact to the 
subjective side of his experience by stating that it was 
the grace of God which manifested itself to him, and 
made of him what he is (verse 10). 

The fullest account of his own fundamental exper- 
ience, and its intimate connection with his Gospel, has 
been given by Paul in Gal. 1:10 ff. For the under- 
standing of the whole passage, it is important to note 
its apologetic and polemical tone. Paul emphasizes the 
fact that his Gospel is not a human affair or a human 
doctrine. This he proves by ealling attention to the 
manner in which the Gospel was received by him. He 
did not receive it in the ordinary way. It was not 
handed to him by any man, nor was he taught it. It 
came to him through a revelation of Jesus Christ. This 
again, Just as in I Cor. 15: 8, is an objective statement 
of fact. The meaning of this fact is then explained by 
Paul in the next verses in which he gives a brief account 
of his own religious development, and interprets his ex- 
perience as the result of an act of God’s purest grace. 

Yet, while it is true that Paul’s own conception of 
the gospel had its main source in his personal religious 
experience, it is also true that the Gospel which he 
preached was deeply rooted in the common faith of the 
Church that existed before him, and into which he was 
received. Paul was not the first Christian who had a 
personal relation to the glorified Jesus, and in speaking 
of his own personal relations to the glorified Jesus, he 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 47 


only expressed what all Christian believers before him 
also confessed and believed. Moreover, when Paul was 
converted, he became a member of the church in Dam- 
ascus, and the church in Damascus was closely con- 
nected with the mother church in Jerusalem. Paul had 
therefore ample opportunity to familiarize himself with 
the life and teaching of Jesus. It is true that he 
strongly emphasized his independence as an Apostle. 
But he also lays stress on the fact that his Gospel is the 
same as that of the original Apostles. He speaks of 
‘“‘my Gospel,’’ but in speaking of the Gospel which he 
preached, he tells the Corinthians that he passed on to 
them what he had received (I Cor. 15:3). Three years 
after his conversion, he visited Jerusalem, to become 
acquainted with Cephas, and spent two weeks with him. 
Fourteen years later, he went up to Jerusalem again, 
and conferred with James, Cephas and John, who were 
regarded as the pillars of the Church. The result of 
that conference was that these leaders recognized the 
grace of God in the labors of Barnabas and Paul, 
pledged them their co-operation, and only asked them 
to remember the poor. Ever since that memorable con- 
ference, which is known as the Apostolic Council, Paul 
was in close contact with the mother church in Jeru- 
salem, and gave the church his moral and financial sup- 
port. It is contrary to all historical evidence, that 
Paul’s Gospel should have differed in any essential 
point from the Gospel that was preached by the original 
Apostles. However, the question may be asked whether 
it can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, that Paul’s 
conception of the Gospel is really in complete harmony 
with the earlier conception of the Gospel. For a full 
discussion of this question, it is necessary to go back 
to the religious beliefs and convictions of the first Chris- 


48 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


tians, and then to investigate Paul’s attitude to these 
convictions. 


IV 


According to the traditional view, the history of the 
Apostolic Church begins with the day of Pentecost. 
This view is based upon Luke’s account in the Book of 
Acts, and there is no reason why the historicity of 
Luke’s account should be called into question. The day 
of Pentecost undoubtedly marks the revival of a move- 
ment which had its origin in the ministry of Jesus, but 
which had been interrupted by His violent death on the 
cross. His disciples and followers had believed in Him 
as the Messiah whom God had sent to establish the 
Kingdom of God and to redeem Israel. His shameful 
death destroyed their hopes. From the historical point 
of view, the revival of a lost cause, and much more so 
its rapid spread, would be totally incomprehensible 
without the revival of the disciples’ faith in their divine 
Lord and Master. What had happened to revive such 
a faith in their hearts? 

According to the unanimous testimony of all the New 
Testament writers, the crucified Jesus had risen from 
the dead on the third day, and had appeared to His 
disciples. He had shown Himself alive to them, and 
had convinced them that death had no power over Him. 
The earliest and most important literary record of the 
fundamental facts concerning the Lord’s resurrection 
is found in First Corinthians 15: 3-8, where Paul sums 
up the reports of the eye-witnesses from whom he had 
received the facts. These reports are borne out by the 
Gospel records. 

A comparative study of the resurrection accounts in 
the Gospels will disclose minor discrepancies and dif- 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 49 


ferences between them. But the main facts are beyond 
dispute. The problem of the Lord’s resurrection does 
not concern the facts themselves, but the interpretation 
of the facts. Modern scholars do not deny the belief 
of the disciples in the living Saviour. But they explain 
that belief by the vision theory, and they distinguish 
between a subjective and an objective vision. We can- 
not enter into a discussion of these theories. We simply 
state it as our conviction, that the term ‘‘vision’’ is 
utterly unfit to explain the historical fact of the Lord’s 
resurrection. A vision belongs to the sphere of the 
inner life; it is an inner occurrence of the soul, and it 
has its source in a peculiar state of mind. Even the 
objective vision theory does not fully explain the sig- 
nificance of ‘‘the third day’’ and the empty tomb in the 
resurrection accounts. 

The bodily resurrection of the crucified Jesus is the 
foundation upon which the Apostolic Chureh with its 
life, its faith, and its teaching, rests. The conviction, 
that the crucified Saviour had risen from the dead, and 
by His resurrection had entered into a new life of 
greater activity, separated the disciples from their 
Jewish co-religionists. 

In the eyes of the first Christians, the resurrection of 
the Lord was first of all His rehabilitation and justifica- 
tion, and its immediate effect upon the disciples was 
the rekindling of their faith in Him and in His Messiah- 
ship. Thus Christianity sprang into life as worship of 
Jesus, the crucified and risen Saviour, the exalted and 
glorified Lord. 

This worship of Jesus as the Lord of glory, however, 
carried with it from the very beginning certain religious 
convictions, which became the source of important doc- 
trinal statements, especially with regard to the person 


50 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


and work of Jesus. These convictions have been pre- 
served to us in the names and titles which are connected 
with the person of the risen Lord in the worship of the 
Church. It is no exaggeration to say that the begin- 
nings of Christian thought in general, and of the 
Christological dogma in particular, can be traced to the 
use of those names and titles in the worship of the early 
Church. 

The oldest name and title, in which the first Chris- 
tians expressed their faith in the risen Lord, is the 
name ‘‘Messiah’’ ( Xpiores ). As the Messiah-king on 
the throne they worshiped Him, and there is also no 
doubt that the earliest creed, the first formula of faith, 
was the simple confession, that Jesus is the Christ. But 
it is significant that the original meaning of the title, as 
applied to the Jesus of the Gospels, underwent an im- 
portant change. The Messiahship of the risen Lord is 
no longer understood in the purely eschatological or 
apocalyptic sense. The eschatological meaning of the 
title is not lost sight of altogether: it becomes the 
foundation of the Christian hope in the Lord’s second 
coming, His wapovoia (I Thess. 1:10, and elsewhere). 
But He is already the Messiah on the throne in His pres- 
ent state of exaltation, as the One to whom all power is 
given in heaven and on earth. His kingdom, although 
it will be established in full glory in the future, is in 
existence already, and the reign exercised by the Mes- 
siah in His present state, is a spiritual reign. 

According to our four Gospels, Jesus spoke of Him- 
self and of His mission as ‘‘the Son of Man.’’ In the 
worship of the early Church this name is almost for- 
gotten. But the corresponding name ‘‘the Son of God,’’ 
which is also found in the Gospels and is applied to 
Jesus by those who believed Him to be the Messiah, 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 51 


now rises into prominence, and receives a fuller and 
deeper meaning: it expresses no longer the Messianic 
idea, but has reference to the personal relation of Jesus 
to God. He is the Son of God in power because God 
has raised Him from the dead. Nevertheless, His resur- 
rection is not His deification: He has always been God 
in the true and genuine sense, and this belief in His 
deity goes hand in hand with the belief in His pre- 
existence. In fact, it may be said that the Lord’s pre- 
existence, which is so prominent in the Gospel of John, 
is already indissolubly connected with the faith of the 
first Christians, and the preaching of the first Chris- 
tian missionaries. 

Even more significant than the application of the 
title ‘‘the Son of God’’ to the person of the Lord in the 
faith and worship of the early Church, is the meaning 
connected with the name Kvpios (Lord) as applied to 
the risen and exalted Saviour by the first Christians. 
It expresses, as no other name or title does, the distinc- 
tive faith of all believing Christians. The name is not 
used in the former historical sense: it is not a mere 
equivalent of Master or Teacher, but has from the very 
beginning a much deeper religious meaning: it is the 
name which is above every name; it is the name upon 
which Christians call in every place when they offer 
their prayers to the God of their salvation. ‘‘There is 
only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and 
we in him; and there is only one Lord Jesus Christ, by 
whom are all things, and we by him”’ (I Cor. 8:6). He 
is the Lord in the absolute sense, and because He is the 
Lord we can not only believe in Him and put our trust 
in Him, but we must also worship Him and serve Him 
in holiness and righteousness. 


52 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


But, while early Christianity is on the one hand wor- 
ship of Jesus, it is on the other hand a life in the Spirit. 
Possession of the Spirit, whom the exalted Saviour 
sends down and pours out upon all believers, is the dis- 
tinctive mark of His disciples. This Spirit is conceived, 
not as power only but also as a free gift and as a dis- 
tinct person. 

The firm conviction of the first Christians, that they 
are in possession of the Spirit of the exalted and glor- 
ified Lord, has its source in a life-experience, and the 
reality of this life-experience is proved by the force with 
which the Spirit asserts himself as the spirit of holiness 
in their individual lives, as well as by the force with 
which he binds them all together by the ties of brotherly 
love as members of one body—a real communion of 
believers, of one heart and soul. This conviction is 
further strengthened by the Messianic prophecies, which 
speak of a general outpouring of the Spirit of God at 
the time of the Messiah. It is confirmed by the prom- 
ises of Jesus, which are now believed to have been ful- 
filled, and it can be traced back to the life and ministry 
of Jesus Himself. 

Early Christianity was singularly free from any fixed 
ordinances in the later ecclesiastical sense. Its life was 
not controlled by any rules and regulations, but was 
guided and directed by the free movement of the Holy 
Spirit. The religion of the first Christians was a re- 
ligion, not of the letter but of the spirit; it was not 
legalistic but prophetic. The believers were not bound 
by any law except the law of love, to which Paul refers 
in Galatians 6:2 as ‘‘the law of Christ.’’ 

However, there are two things that prevented the 
first Christians from becoming religious enthusiasts, 
and these things are of fundamental importance. The 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 53 


first has reference to the Lord’s teaching, and the sec- 
ond to His life and example. 

It is perhaps the highest tribute that can be paid to 
any man if it can be said of him that his words were 
regarded as an absolute authority, not only by his 
admirers and immediate followers, but also by subse- 
quent generations. ‘There is only one man to whom that 
tribute can be paid without any condition and restric- 
tion. It is an undeniable fact that the words of Jesus 
made a deep and lasting impression upon all who 
listened to them. This impression is summed up by the 
Evangelist at the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount 
in the words: ‘‘And it came to pass, when Jesus had 
ended these sayings, the people were astonished at His 
doctrine: for he taught them as one having authority, 
and not as the scribes.’’ (Matt. 7:28 f.). His words 
indelibly impressed themselves upon the minds and 
hearts of His hearers, and they were accepted by His 
own disciples as words coming down from the living 
God. The Gospel of John has preserved to us Simon 
Peter’s answer to the question of the Lord: ‘‘Will ye 
also go away?’’ His answer is: ‘‘Lord, to whom shall 
we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.’’ (John 
6:68). In the Gospel of Matthew we find the Lord’s 
own statement with regard to His prophecy of the end: 
‘‘Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall 
not pass away.’’ (Matt. 24:35). After His resurrec- 
tion, the disciples not only remembered His words but 
also valued them as the most precious and priceless 
heritage which the Master had left them. His words 
were their light and comfort, their rod and staff on their 
own journey. His words were also the only safe guide 
for the believers in whose hearts the Spirit had wrought 
a new life of holiness and love: they pointed out to the 


54 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


believer the true way of life; they told him how to live 
and conduct himself if he wanted to please God. For 
this purpose the sayings of the Lord were carefully pre- 
served, and collections of His sayings became the basis 
of Christian conduct. They were intended for the be- 
liever in his relation to God and to his fellow-believer. 
But they prepared the way for a new order of things, 
and laid the foundation of new ethical and moral stand- 
ards in the world. By the believer they were accepted 
as the very words of God, because they were known 
to have been spoken by Him who was worshiped as the 
Lord of glory. But their intrinsic truth has secured 
for them a place in the heart of mankind from which 
no earthly power will ever dislodge them. 

But the Master’s words could not be separated from 
His own life and example. His words have given to 
the world new ideals. But these ideals were exemplified 
in His own life. Here was a life, perfect in holiness, 
in obedience to the will of God, and perfect in self-sac- 
rificing love. It reached its climax in His death on the 
cross when He gave His life ‘‘a ransom for many.’’ 
But was not every moment of His life spent in the same 
ministry of love which led Him step by step to the cross 
of Calvary? His disciples who followed Him, who were 
witnesses of His words and deeds, learned to know Him 
and to love Him. But it was after His resurrection, 
that the real meaning of His life was revealed to them. 
To follow His example, to walk in His footsteps, to love 
as He had loved, and to forgive as He had forgiven, 
to serve each other as He had served them when He 
girded Himself, and began to wash their feet,—this was 
their ideal of life, and, however, imperfectly this ideal 
was realized in their own lives, they never tried to drag 
it down to their own level. 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 55 


A thorough examination of the Pauline Epistles will 
show that Paul did not depart from the teachings of the 
mother Church on a single point. There is no difference 
between Paul and the early Church in the conception of 
Christ as the Son of God. Paul’s own Christology is a 
development of the universal faith of all Christians who 
‘call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ in every 
place.’’ (I Cor. 1:3). It is true that Paul has de- 
veloped a doctrine of redemption and atonement, which 
seems to have been entirely his own. Yet in First 
Corinthians 15:3 we are told that he passed on to the 
Corinthians, as of first importance, the account which 
he had received, ‘‘that Christ died for our sins accord- 
ing to the Scriptures.’’ The same is true of the Lord’s 
resurrection, and its bearing on our faith. Finally, 
together with all Christians, and in accordance with the 
promises of Jesus Himself, Paul also shared in the fer- 
vent hope of the Lord’s second coming. The idea of the 
Kingdom of God has not a central place in Paul’s let- 
ters, but Paul is familiar with the idea, and his concep- 
tion of it agrees with the conception of the early Church; 
he associates the Kingdom of God primarily with the 
Lord’s second coming (I Thess. 2:12; Gal. 5: 21; I Cor. 
6:9; I Cor. 15:50), but he occasionally refers to it as 
a thing of the present, and in doing so emphasizes its 
spiritual nature. (I Cor. 4:20; Rom. 14:17; Col. 1:13; 
Col. 4:11). 

However, the most important question in the discus- 
sion of Paul’s relation to the teachings of the early 
Church, concerns his relation to the historical Jesus, 
His teaching as well as His life and example. Many of 
our modern scholars take the ground that Paul had no 
real interest in the life and teaching of the Master, that 
the human life of the Lord was to him a mere incident 


56 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


and episode. Even some of our conservative scholars 
are inclined to take similar views. The writer has been 
convinced for a long time that this is an erroneous posi- 
tion, which is not warranted by the facts in the case. 
It is quite true that Paul’s references to the historical 
Jesus are comparatively few in number, and that these 
few are more or less of an incidental character. But it 
must not be forgotten, that Paul’s letters are occasional 
writings, which deal to a great extent with practical 
conditions and difficulties arising out of his missionary 
labors. The argumentum e silentio is always a very 
weak argument, and it may lead to very wrong conclu- 
sions. 'T’o argue, that because Paul is silent in his let- 
ters on many important phases of the Lord’s ministry, 
therefore he must not have known them, or must have 
been indifferent to them, is an untenable position. 
Furthermore, while it is also quite true that Paul’s 
interest is chiefly centered in the Lord’s death and 
resurrection, these two fundamental facts presuppose 
the story of the Cross, and the story of the Cross can 
never be separated from the story of the Lord’s life and 
ministry. This does not mean that Paul has known a 
written ‘‘Gospel,’’ although it is quite possible that 
some written sources such as Luke refers to in the pre- 
face to his Gospel, were known to him. But it means 
that he was familiar with the Gospel tradition, and made 
use of it in his missionary preaching. This is con- 
clusively proved by his full and accurate account of the 
institution of the Lord’s Supper in First Corinthians 
11: 23 ff. The manner in which Paul introduces his ac- 
count, forbids us to think of a special revelation: he has 
passed on to the Corinthians what he himself has re- 
ceived, and he is convinced that what he has received 
is ‘‘from the Lord.’’ The verbs which Paul uses here, 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 57 


have a technical meaning: they have reference to the 
oral tradition, while the preposition @7¢ (from) refers 
to the ultimate source, and does not exclude but rather 
includes human agencies. It is safe to say that the in- 
stitution ‘of the Lord’s Supper is not the only historical 
fact of the Lord’s life, which Paul received from the 
original Apostles. 

As a matter of fact, the historical material regarding 
the Lord’s earthly life and ministry in Paul’s letters is 
much more abundant than some scholars are willing to 
admit. The Davidic ‘descent of the Lord is referred to 
by Paul in Romans 1:3; 15:12; II Tim. 2:8. The name 
‘*Son of David’’ is in the Gospels a title of the Messiah. 
But no one could have claimed to be the Messiah unless 
he was known to be a descendant of David. Paul must 
therefore have been familiar with the Lord’s genealogy. 
As the ‘‘Son of David’’ all the promises of God, which 
were given to the people of Israel, have been fulfilled 
in Him. (II Cor. 1:20; Rom. 9:5). He was born of 
a woman, and made subject to the law (Gal. 4:4); He 
became a minister of the circumcision to establish the 
truthfulness of God (Rom. 15:8), and though He was 
rich, He became poor for our sake (IJ Cor. 8:9). The 
story of the Saviour’s birth, and the circumstances at- 
tending His birth, are told by Luke in the first two chap- 
ters of his Gospel. In view of the references in the 
Pauline Epistles, which we have just mentioned, it is 
hard to believe that Paul should not have been familiar 
with the same story. 

That Paul had an intimate knowledge of the story of 
the Cross, has been stated already. The Cross of Christ 
is referred to by him in about fifteen places. It is in- 
timately connected with his conception of the Gospel, 
and its meaning is summed up in the rule of faith, which 


58 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


is the nucleus of the Apostles’ Creed, and is stated by 
him in I. Cor. 15:3 in the words: ‘‘That Christ died 
for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was 
buried, and that He was raised from the dead on the 
third day according to the Scriptures.’’ The same rule 
of faith is referred to in I Tim. 6:12f where Timothy is 
admonished to remember the ‘‘beautiful profession of 
faith,’’ which he made before many witnesses, and which 
is based upon Christ’s great profession before Pontius 
Pilate. . 

It may be readily conceded that Paul’s lack of per- 
sonal knowledge of the Lord’s ministry has been of dis- 
advantage to him in presenting to his hearers a vivid 
picture of the historical Jesus. However, the statement 
sometimes made by modern scholars, that the Saviour’s 
life and example had no influence upon Paul’s life or 
his own ideal of life, is not in accordance with the facts. 
In I Thess. 1: 5f, Paul reminds his readers ‘‘of the kind 
of life we lived among you for your sake;’’ then he 
goes on saying: ‘‘And you followed the example set by 
us and by the Lord.’’ The Philippians are exhorted to 
have that same humble attitude of mind, in their re- 
lation to each other, which Christ Jesus had (Phil. 
2:4ff). Of special importance is Paul’s discussion of 
the attitude of the strong to the weak in Rom. 15:1 ff. 
In this whole passage, the Lord’s life and example is 
clearly made the basis of the appeal to the strong, ‘‘to 
bear the infirmities of the weak, and not just suit them- 
selves; every one must try to please his neighbor, to do 
him good, and help him, just as Christ also did not live 
for Himself.’’ Therefore the Apostle prays that God 
may grant them to follow the example of Jesus Christ, 
and live in harmony with one another (v. 5). All these 
references, however, in which the Apostle has in mind 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 59 


the example of our Lord, are surpassed by the Apostle’s 
frequent recourse to the self-sacrificing love of Christ, 
which culminated in the giving of His own life. The 
Galatians are reminded that the Lord Jesus Christ gave 
Himself for our sins to save us from the present wicked 
world (Gal. 1:4). The Apostle’s own life in Christ is 
a life ‘‘by faith in the Son of God who loved me and 
gave Himself for me’’ (Gal. 2:20). It is the conscious- 
ness of Christ’s love that urges and drives him in his 
own ministry of reconciliation (II. Cor. 5:14). The 
Ephesians are admonished by him to walk in love, just 
as Christ loved us and gave Himself for us, as a sweet- 
smelling offering and sacrifice to God (Eph. 5:1f). 

Just as the Lord’s life is Paul’s ideal of a Christian 
life, so the Lord’s teaching in his supreme authority. 
In several places of his letters Paul has referred his 
readers to ‘‘a word of the Lord.’’ These references are 
so instructive and important that we will briefly discuss 
them. Two of them are found in First Thessalonians; 
two others have their place in First Corinthians. 

The members of the church in Thessalonica grieved 
for those in their midst who had recently fallen asleep. 
The Apostle assures them, ‘‘on the authority of a word 
of the Lord,’’ that those who survive until the coming 
of the Lord, will have no advantage over those who 
have fallen asleep. He then describes the manner of 
the Lord’s coming in words that are similar to the words 
of Jesus which are recorded in the Gospels. If the 
reader will compare I. Thess. 4:13-18 with Mark 13: 
26f and Matt. 24:31, he will come to the conclusion that 
Paul and the Synoptics have drawn from the same 
source. 7 

In the passage that follows, the Apostle again refers 
to a word of the Lord as his authority for the statement 


60 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


that the day of the Lord will come ‘‘like a thief in the 
night’’ (I Thess. 5:1ff). This word of the Lord is not 
only found in the Gospels (Matt. 24:43; Luke 12:39), 
but is also quoted in Second Peter (3:10) and in the 
Apocalypse (3:3; 16:15). In First Thessalonians, Paul 
introduces it by the significant statement that the 
Thessalonians have already an accurate knowledge of 
these things, and therefore do not need to have anyone 
write to them. 

The seventh chapter of First Corinthians deals with 
the problems of marriage and married life. After giv- 
ing his advice to those who are unmarried or widows, 
the Apostle continues: ‘‘To those already married my 
instructions are—indeed, they are not mine, but the 
Lord’s—that a wife must not separate from her hus- 
band; if she has separated, she must remain single or 
else become reconciled to him; and a husband must not 
divorce his wife’’ (I Cor. 7:10f). Here the Apostle 
clearly distinguishes between his own authority and the 
authority of the Lord Jesus; he calls the attention of 
the Corinthians to a word of the Lord, upon which he 
bases his own instructions to them. The Lord’s saying 
which he quotes is recorded in our three Synoptic Gos- 
pels (Matt. 5:32; Mark 10:11f; Luke 16:18). 

In the ninth chapter of First Corinthians, the Apostle 
discusses his own ministry as an example of self-deny- 
ing love. As a minister of the Gospel he did not accept 
any remuneration for his work among them, but sup- 
ported himself by working with his own hands. How- 
ever, this should not be the rule, but is an exception. 
The rule is that those who preach the Gospel, should 
also get their living from it. To prove this, the Apostle 
uses a threefold argument. He first appeals to the law 
of nature, then to the ordinances of God in the Old 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 61 


Testament, and finally to the authority of the Lord 
Jesus Himself. He doubtless has in mind the Lord’s 
saying recorded in the Gospels (Matt. 10:10; Luke 
10:7), that a laborer is worthy of his hire. 

These references show that to Paul as well as to the 
original Apostles the teaching of Jesus was the supreme 
authority. 

However, the Apostle has made a much more exten- 
sive use of the teaching of Jesus than those few direct 
references to words of the Lord indicate. 

It is a well-known fact that, as a rule, Paul closes 
his letters with practical exhortations which pertain to 
the Christian life and conduct of his readers. A com- 
parative study of these exhortations leads to the con- 
clusion that they were written on the basis of a uniform 
plan, and that this plan goes back to very definite in- 
structions with which the readers were already familiar. 
The most explicit set of such exhortations is found in 
the Epistle to the Romans (chapters 12 and 13). But 
their general plan and outline, as well as their connec- 
tion with former instructions received by the readers, 
are perhaps most conspicuous in Paul’s first letter to 
the Thessalonians. Paul had practically finished his 
letter with the third chapter. What follows seems to 
be what we might call an afterthought. Yet the con- 
tents of this unusually long postscript have an import- 
ant bearing on the development of the Christian life of 
the Thessalonian church, and are of extraordinary in- 
terest to us. The exhortations in these last two chap- 
ters are introduced by a statement in which the Apostle 
reminds his readers of former instructions, which they 
had received from him, about ‘‘the way you are to live 
so as to please God’’ (I Thess. 4:1f). The phrase it- 
self is so carefully worded that it may have been the 


62 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


title of a written statement, which contained a summary 
-of Christian life and conduct—not a regula fidei, but a 
regula vitae. This impression is confirmed by the order 
in which those instructions are taken up: (a) /sanc- 
tification; (b) brotherly love There is no doubt that 
in a rule of life, especially intended for recent converts 
from heathenism, the subject of sanctification would re- 
ceive the first place. The manner in which the transi- 
tion is then made from the first to the second subject, 
can be fully explained only by the fact that in the rule 
of life, to which Paul refers, the subject of brotherly 
love also had the same place. The Apostle writes: ‘‘But 
concerning brotherly love, there is no need to write to 
you’’ (4:9). He would probably have omitted the sub- 
ject altogether if it had not been mentioned in the rule 
of life, with which the Thessalonians were already 
familiar. Highly significant is also his statement that 
he has given those former instructions to them ‘‘on the 
authority of the Lord Jesus (4:2). The whole passage 
suggests to us a rule of life, which was based upon the 
teaching of Jesus. 

Further investigation shows that this rule of life must 
have been identical with what the Apostle meant by 
the word Séay7 in Romans 6:17 and 16:17. Acdayy 
means teaching or doctrine. But the word is not used 
by Paul with regard to his missionary preaching, 
his xypuvyua, which is designated by the term evayyeXov 
and its synonymous expressions. In both places where 
Paul uses the word &éay7, it has reference to a teach- 
ing which concerns the Christian life. 

In Romans 16:17 the readers are admonished ‘‘to 
guard against those who are causing divisions and dif- 
ficulties, contrary to the teaching which you have 
learned, and to avoid them.’’ These disturbers of the 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 63 


peace are then described as persons who ‘‘are not serv- 
ing the Lord Christ, but their own evil desires and with 
their persuasive and flattering talk deceive the simple- 
minded (v. 18). The teaching or doctrine (6éay%), which 
the readers once learned, points to a very definite form 
of instruction concerning the true way of life. 

Still more important is the use of the word Séayy in 
Romans 6:17. The Revised Version has rendered verse 
17 as follows: ‘‘Thanks be to God that, whereas ye were 
servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to 
that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered.’’ 
What is meant by the ‘‘form of teaching,’’ to which the 
Christians were once handed over? The answer to this 
question hangs on the meaning of the phrase tvzos 
ddayjs. The translation ‘‘form of doctrine’’ (A. V.) or 
‘‘form of teaching’’ (R. V.) agrees with the trans- 
lation of the Vulgate: Forma doctrinae. A marginal 
note in the Revised Version suggests the translation 
‘‘nattern of teaching,’’ which would be more in har- 
mony with Luther’s translation Vorbild der Lehre. 
Commentators are divided in their opinions with re- 
gard to the proper meaning of the phrase. The Greek 
word tv7os originally denotes the mark left by a blow, 
or the stamp struck by a die. From this the word gets 
the meaning figure, wage, model, example or type pre- 
figuring something. Paul uses the word more than half 
a dozen times in his letters. Thus the Thessalonians 
are complimented by the Apostle because they have be- 
come a pattern for all the believers in Macedonia and 
Achaia (I Thess. 1:7). The Philippians are urged by 
him to follow his example (Phil. 3:17). Timothy is 
admonished to set an example of good works to the be- 
lievers (I Tim. 4:12). It is on the same line when the 
Apostle speaks of a tvros duvdayfs, a model teaching, 


64 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


to which the Roman Christians were delivered, and by 
which they were to be guided in their daily life and 
conduct. The nature of this model teaching is revealed 
by the context: it is not a ‘‘rule of faith,’’? as Moffatt 
suggests by his translation of the phrase, but a ‘‘rule 
of life,’? to which the Christians wholeheartedly ob- 
ligated themselves when they were baptized. The en- 
tire sixth chapter of Romans is an earnest appeal to the 
Christians to lead a consecrated life, and this appeal is 
based on the experience through which the Christians 
had passed in and with their baptism into the death of 
Christ. The rule of faith was connected with the mis- 
sionary preaching of the Apostles. The rule of life had 
its source in the teaching of Jesus Himself. 


V 


Our discussion of Paul’s relation to the faith and life 
of the first Christians has shown that there was com- 
plete agreement between them. The Gospel which Paul 
preached had its roots in the story of the Cross. The 
way of life, which he taught, was founded on the teach- 
ing of the Master. It is a most remarkable fact that 
modern investigation with regard to the sources under- 
lying our Gospels, has come to the same results. Our 
four Gospels contain the records of Jesus. The first 
three are called the Synoptic Gospels because they were 
written according to a general uniform plan of which 
the broad lines can still be clearly traced if the Gospel 
of Mark is taken as a basis. The Gospel of Mark is 
almost entirely contained in the Gospel of Matthew, 
and a large part of it has been taken over into the Gospel 
of Luke. The literary relationship of the first three 
Gospels is still a problem, which may never be com- 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 65 


pletely solved. Yet it is safe to say that the material 
which is common to all three Gospels constituted the 
bulk of the missionary preaching in the early Church. 
The order in which this material was presented is in- 
dicated by the following important events in the Lord’s 
life and ministry, which may be regarded as our guiding 
posts: The ministry of John the Baptist; the begin- 
nings of Jesus in Capernaum; the selection of the 
Twelve; the confession of Peter at Cesarea Philippi; 
the last journey to Jerusalem; the last days in Jeru- 
salem; the story of the Cross; the resurrection of the 
Lord. The author of the fourth Gospel has followed a 
different plan. Yet traces of his familiarity with the 
Synoptic plan can still be observed in his Gospel. 

A second source which has been discovered in our 
first three Gospels, is more elusive, and it is perhaps 
impossible to restore it, as Harnack has attempted to 
do. But of its existence there is no doubt, nor can it 
be doubted that it was chiefly, though not exclusively, 
composed of discourses and sayings of the Lord. It is 
particularly conspicuous in the Gospel of Matthew, and 
it is the writer’s conviction that the former publican 
Levi-Matthew is responsible for it. 

In addition to these two sources, which we have just 
mentioned, our Evangelists may have used other sources 
which were accessible to them. Luke, in the preface to 
his Gospel, speaks of many who had undertaken to write 
down accounts of the facts upon which the Gospel mes- 
sage was based. Indeed, we would be surprised if it 
had been otherwise. Our Gospels were not written until 
after the year 60. There is therefore a period of about 
thirty years between Jesus and our Gospels. But the 
sources underlying our Gospels, lessen the time, not 
covered by any written documents, to a considerable 


66 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


degree. In fact, there is no reason why important say- 
ings of the Lord should not have been written down soon 
after His resurrection. 

Our Gospels are so intimately bound up with the faith 
and life, the teaching and preaching, of the early Church 
that their general trustworthiness is fully assured. All 
four were written by men who believed in Jesus, and 
wished to influence their readers in the interest of the 
Christian faith. But each Gospel has also its own 
specific purpose which is expressed either in a title 
(Matt. 1:1; Mark 1:1), or in a preface (Luke 1:1-4), 
or in an introductory meditation (John 1:1-18). And 
each has its own peculiarities which are due to the in- 
dividuality of the author. 

Since none of our Gospels has given us the name of 
its author, the question of authorship must be deter- 
mined by external and internal evidence. The external 
evidence is contained in the testimony of the early 
Church, which ean be traced to the close of the first cen- 
tury. It is in each case supported by strong internal 
evidence. It may help us in our study of the Jesus of 
the New Testament, to point out a few characteristic 
features by which each individual Gospel is distin- 
guished. If we follow the chronological order we have 
to begin with the Gospel of Mark. 

The Gospel of Mark.—When Luke wrote his Gospel, 
he justified his own undertaking by stating that others 
had made similar attempts. At the same time, he vol- 
unteered the information that their accounts had been 
received from the original eye-witnesses. Although 
Luke does not mention the name of Mark, the Gospel of 
Mark must have been among those written accounts to 
which he refers. 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 67 


The name of Mark is mentioned in the New Testa- 
ment in the following places: Acts 12: 12ff; 18:5, 18; 
15: 38-41; Col. 4:10; Philemon 23; II Tim. 4:11; I Peter 
5:13. According to these references, he was a nephew 
of Barnabas, and the spiritual son of Peter. His 
mother’s name was Mary, and her house in Jerusalem 
was one of the places where the Apostles and many of 
the ‘‘brethren’’ used to meet in the early days of the 
Christian Church. Through his relative Barnabas he 
became acquainted with Paul, and accompanied Paul 
and Barnabas on their first extensive missionary tour 
from Antioch to Cyprus and Pamphylia, but for rea- 
sons unknown to us left them, and returned to Jeru- 
salem. He became the assistant of Barnabas, but about 
ten years later we find him again in the company of 
Paul as one of the Apostle’s faithful attendants dur- 
ing his imprisonment at Rome. 

The reference to Mark in the Book of Acts and the 
Kpistles of Paul leave the impression that he was a 
trusted and faithful servant rather than a born leader. 
This impression is confirmed by the general character 
of his Gospel. There is an ancient and apparently well 
founded tradition that Mark wrote his Gospel on the 
basis of missionary discourses which had been delivered 
by Peter before the gates of Rome. The Gospel of 
Mark bears all the earmarks of such a missionary Gos- 
pel in which the earliest Gospel tradition—the story of 
Jesus as it was told by the first Christian missionaries 
to those who never heard of the Saviour—has been pre- 
served to us. The purpose of the Gospel is expressed 
in the first verse of the first chapter: ‘‘ Beginning of the 
Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.’’ The Gospel 
itself culminates in the story of the Cross, but this story 
is preceded by sketches from the Lord’s ministry, in 


68 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


which the Lord is pictured to us as the great prophet, 
mighty in word and deed. The person of Peter occupies 
a prominent place in the Gospel, and Petrine traces are 
found throughout the book. We call this Gospel the 
Gospel of Mark. We might just as well call it the Gospel 
of Peter. 

The Gospel of Matthew—The Gospel of Mark is 
almost entirely contained in the Gospel of Matthew. 
But the chief characteristic feature of Matthew’s Gospel 
may be found in five large groups of the Lord’s sayings, 
which the writer has woven into the narrative part of 
his book. These sayings of our Lord have been ar- 
ranged in topical order, with the Kingdom of heaven as 
the central theme. The first group contains the Sermon 
on the Mount, and deals with the righteousness of the 
Kingdom (5-7). Missionary instructions to the Twelve, 
which form the second group (ch. 10), have their cen- 
tral thought in the expansion of the Kingdom. A cycle 
of seven parables in chapter 13 sets forth the mystery 
and nature of the Kingdom. The life in the Kingdom is 
the dominant note in chapter 18, which speaks of the 
duties of discipleship. Chapter 24 and 25, which con- 
tain the eschatological sayings of the Lord, look forward 
to the consummation of the Kingdom. 

Intimately connected with the idea of the Kingdom 
of heaven, is the idea of the Messiah. According to the 
title, the author intends to present to his readers a ‘‘his- 
tory of Jesus the Christ, the son of David, the son of 
Abraham.’’ The first two chapters give an account of 
the Messiah’s nativity. Then follows an introductory 
section which sets forth the Messiah’s preparation for 
His work (3: 1—4:11). The Messiah’s work is described 
in the next section (4:12-11:1), and the growing op- 
position to Him is the dominant note in the section that 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 69 


follows (11: 2—16: 20). The first Passion announcement 
prepares the reader for the last journey to Jerusalem 
and the last days in the city (16: 21—25:46). The story 
of the Messiah’s suffering, death and resurrection is 
told in the last three chapters. 

In the narrative part of his Gospel, the writer follows 
the plan of Mark. But the historical material is sub- 
ordinated to didactic purposes. The Christ-picture of 
the Gospel is most impressive and of magnificent 
grandeur. The history of the Messiah is presented in 
the light of the Old Testament prophecies. But the idea 
of the Messiah as the king of glory melts into one with 
the idea of the servant of the Lord as the prophet Isaiah 
has described him. 

Tradition has attributed this Gospel to the former 
publican Levi-Matthew of Capernaum, who is mentioned 
in the lists of the Apostles as one of the Twelve. Mod- 
ern scholars accept this testimony of the early Church 
insofar as the Lord’s sayings in this Gospel are con- 
cerned. But there is no reason why Matthew’s author- 
ship should not be extended to the entire book. 

The Gospel of Luke-—Some one has made the remark 
that Luke’s Gospel is the most attractive book in the 
Bible. Such a statement is not without foundation. The 
writer of this Gospel was a native of Antioch in Syria. 
In his younger days he had studied medicine, and the 
practice of his profession must have helped him to de- 
velop that genuine human sympathy which is one of the 
characteristic features of his Gospel. His acquaintance 
with Paul, who refers to him as ‘‘the beloved phy- 
sician’’ (Col. 4:14), soon ripened into friendship and 
admiration, and it was undoubtedly Paul’s life and ex- 
ample that inspired him to write his great historical 
work on the origin and expansion of Christianity, of 


70 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


which his Gospel is the first part. The whole character 
of the book is in complete harmony with Paul’s con- 
ception of the Gospel as the message of salvation for 
Jew and Gentile. This is already seen in the historical 
setting of the Gospel, but we can also observe it in the 
general treatment of the Lord’s life and ministry, and 
more particularly in the idea of universality, which per- 
meates the Gospel. Thus, for instance, the genealogy 
of the Lord is traced back to Adam, the first man, in 
order to emphasize the fact that Jesus is the second 
Adam, and as such belongs to all men. 

Luke’s picture of Jesus Himself is in accordance with 
the universal tendency of his Gospel. Jesus is presented 
to us as the Saviour of the whole world, the revealer of 
God’s boundless love and mercy, especially to those who 
are lost. He is the friend of publicans and sinners. He 
ministers not only to Jews, but also to Samaritans. 
With manifest satisfaction Luke tells us how those de- 
spised persons were drawn to the Lord, and were re- 
ceived by Him. And when he wrote down those beau- 
tiful parables which we find in the 15th chapter of his 
Gospel, there must have been in his own heart the same 
joy which Jesus expressed in the words: ‘‘There is joy 
in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that 
repenteth.’’ It is Luke who calls our attention to the 
Lord’s heart-winning kindness, His human sympathy, 
his love of home and friendship, His care for the weak 
and needy. Zaccheus the publican, Martha and Mary 
of Bethany, the widow of Nain, the sinful woman—these 
and other familiar stories are peculiar to Luke’s Gospel. 
It is Luke who has transmitted to us the words of Jesus, 
which were addressed to the disciples, and which we 
may apply to the readers of this Gospel: ‘‘Blessed are 
the eyes which see the things that ye see.”’ 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 71 


The Gospel of John.—Origen, a Church father who 
lived in the first half of the third century, has char- 
acterized this book as the ‘‘spiritual’’ Gospel. Luther, 
who was particularly fond of John’s Gospel, spoke of 
it as ‘‘the true and tender chief-Gospel.’’ There is no 
doubt that many Christians, in reading this Gospel, will 
get the same impression today. What attracts them 
first, and most of all, is the wonderful picture of Jesus, 
which we find here. To many modern critics it is the 
picture of an idealized Jesus, whose resemblance to the 
historical Jesus of the first three Gospels is only very 
remote. But to the writer himself that picture was very 
real: it bears the marks of the same Jesus whom he saw 
and knew. This is already brought out in the words 
of the prolog: ‘‘The Word became flesh and dwelt 
among us, and we beheld his glory as of the only begot- 
ten from the Father, full of grace and truth’’ (1:14). 
Far from being speculation or speculative mysticism, 
this statement is the confession of an eye-witness, who 
speaks of his own experience, and the experience of his 
fellow-disciples. Traces of an eye-witness occur also in 
other places of the Gospel. The winning of the first 
disciples is the story of a man who must have been one 
of those first disciples. The description of the ecruci- 
fixion scene betrays the intimate knowledge of a man 
who was present at that scene. 

The Gospel begins with a prolog (1:1-18), which is 
followed by an historical introduction giving the testi- 
mony of the Baptist, and the winning of the first dis- 
ciples (1:1-51). The first large section of the Gospel 
(2: 1—4:54) deals with an early; ministry of the Lord 
in Judea, which is not recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. 
It is introduced by the Lord’s first sign, and closes with 
His second sign. The next large section (5: 1—11: 54) 


72 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


describes the Lord as the Light and the Life of 
the world. The events of the last week, the eve- 
ning of the betrayal with the farewell discourse and the 
high priestly prayer, form the contents of chapters 
twelve to seventeen. The glorification of the Lord, 
through His death and resurrection, is the theme of the 
last section in the three chapters that follow. The con- 
cluding chapter (21) contains what may be termed an 
epilog to the Gospel. 

The Gospel of John is not a biography of Jesus in 
the ordinary sense. It does not give us a full account 
of the Lord’s ministry, but groups the most important 
events of His ministry around His journeys to Jeru- 
salem. Yet the Gospel of John is much more than a 
mere chronicle of certain events in the Lord’s life: it 
is the first authentic interpretation of the meaning of 
His life and person by one who had the closest per- 
sonal relations with Him. 

Traces of this personal relationship are frequent in 
our Gospel. The writer has never forgotten the day 
when he first met the Lord Jesus, and heard His kind 
invitation: ‘‘Come, and ye shall see.’’ On that day, the 
son of Zebedee became the seer, the man of visions. A 
new light dawned upon him, and a new life began for 
him. To be sure, the world did not apprehend the light. 
But the light still shines in the darkness, and all who 
believe on His name, shall see the light as John saw it, 
and shall find in Him eternal life. To bring men to such 
an experience is the ultimate aim of John’s Gospel. 


VI 


The Jesus of our Gospels is the Christ of our faith. 
But can we say with the same degree of assurance that 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 73 


He is also the Jesus of history? Our investigation has 
shown that the Gospel records are inseperably con- 
nected with the Gospel itself. But it is impossible to 
divorce the preaching of the Gospel from those _his- 
torical facts which constitute the revelation of God in 
our Lord Jesus Christ. However, not every detail of 
the Lord’s life is of the same importance, and not all 
the historical facts, recorded in our Gospels, bear the 
same relation to the Gospel. The Jesus of our Gospels, 
the Jesus of the New Testament, is primarily the Christ 
who died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and 
was raised from the dead on the third day acccording 
to the Scriptures. This explains the fact that the story 
of the Cross has received such an important place in 
our Gospels. 

But the story of the Cross would not be: intelligible 
without a general knowledge of the Lord’s life and min- 
istry. His death terminated His ministry, but also 
completed it. In fact, both may be regarded as 
the fulfillment of a divine mission for which the 
Son of God was sent into the world. It is because 
of this intimate connection that all four accounts of the 
Lord’s ministry lead us to the foot of the cross. 

The beginning of the Lord’s public ministry is marked 
by the call which came to Him when He was baptized 
by John. And it is probable that the story of Jesus, as 
it was told by the first Christian missionaries, did not 
go beyond that important event. But while the call to 
His public ministry came to Jesus in the course of His 
human life, the divine mission for which He was called 
is so intimately connected with His own person that, in 
a wider sense, the beginning of His life is also the be- 
ginning of His ministry. For this reason the nativity 
stories in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke help us to 


74 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


understand not only the mystery of His person but also 
the meaning and purpose of His mission. 

A brief discussion of the Lord’s ministry, including 
the circumstances connected with His birth, will bring 
this study to its fitting conclusion. 

In the Gospel of Mark, which embodies the mission- 
ary preaching of the Apostles, no reference is made to 
the Saviour’s birth and the circumstances connected 
with His birth. We may therefore assume that the 
Apostolic preaching began not with the story of the 
Saviour’s birth, but with His first public appearance 
and the ministry of His forerunner. Moreover, the two 
accounts of the Lord’s Nativity in the Gospels of Mat- 
thew and Luke (Matt. 1-2; Luke 1-2, and 3: 23-38) have 
no apparent connection with each other, and therefore 
do not go back to a common souree. The first two chap- 
ters of Luke’s Gospel have a strong Aramaic coloring, 
and Luke himself has intimated to his readers the ul- 
timate source of these chapters when he writes that 
Mary, the mother of Jesus, ‘‘kept all these sayings, pon- 
dering them in her heart’? (2:19 and 2:51). Matthew’s 
Nativity section, in which Joseph is the central figure, 
points to a tradition which had its origin in the mother 
Church of Jerusalem, and it is not unlikely that James, 
‘the brother of the Lord,’’ is the authority back of that 
tradition. 

It may be difficult to harmonize the two accounts of 
the Lord’s Nativity. But it is all the more significant 
that they agree, not only in the Lord’s Davidic descent, 
but also in His birth from the virgin Mary. 

The Lord’s Davidie descent is beyond dispute. It is 
referred to in many places of the New Testament out- 
side of the Gospels (Rom. 1:3; 15:12; II Tim. 2:8; 
Acts 2:30; 13: 23; Hebr. 7:14; Rev. 3:7; 5:5; 22:16), 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 75 


and it is underlying the Lord’s own Messianic claims. 
The Messianic hope of the Jewish people culminated in 
the belief that the Messianic king of the future would 
proceed from the house of David. This belief was based 
on the divine promise which had been given by the 
prophet to King David: ‘‘Thine house and thy kingdom 
shall be established forever’’ (II. Sam. 7:16), a promise 
that became the source of the Messianic prophecies in 
Psalm 2 and Psalm 110. Therefore the Messiah is called 
‘‘the Son of David,’’ and this title was also applied to 
Jesus by those who believed in Him as the Messiah 
(Matt. 9:17. 15: 22:20:30; 21:9)... Jesus. Himself did 
not object to the title, nor did He ever correct the belief 
in His Davidie descent which is presupposed by that 
title. Moreover, His enemies never questioned His 
Davidic descent, although they rejected His Messianic 
claims. The two genealogies of the Lord (Matt. 1: 2-17 
and Luke 3: 23-38) are the genealogies of Joseph, the 
husband of Mary; they do not agree in many partic- 
ulars, nor have they been inserted in the Gospel records 
for the purpose of demonstrating the Lord’s Davidic 
descent, but they confirm what was generally known 
and accepted as the truth, that the family of Jesus 
traced its lineage back to the house of David. 

The Lord’s Davidie descent sheds no light on the 
question of the Virgin Birth. For, whether Joseph was, 
or was not, the natural father of Jesus, the child that 
was born to Joseph and Mary, was in every respect a 
member of the house of David. 

But the Nativity sections of Matthew and Luke, which 
speak of the Lord’s Davidic descent, also state that He 
‘‘was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin 
Mary’’ (Matt. 1:16; 1:18-25; Luke 1: 26-38). These 
statements make it necessary to discuss the question of 


76 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


the Virgin Birth, which has such a prominent place in 
the religious and theological controversies of the present 
day. 

At the very outset, it should be understood that the 
question of the Virgin Birth must be decided on ex- 
egetical and historical grounds. 

A discussion of the question has to take into con- 
sideration two points: (a) the facts stated by the evan- 
gelists; (b) the explanation of the facts. 

With regard to the first point, it is desirable to in- 
vestigate the accounts of Matthew and Luke separately. 

Matthew mentions the Virgin Birth for the first time 
in 1:16: ‘‘ Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband 
of Mary, who was the mother of Jesus called Christ.’’ 
It is true that the genuineness of this reading has been 
questioned. But the reading itself is so well attested, 
and the evidence in favor of its genuineness so over- 
whelming, that it cannot be rejected on textual grounds. 
Besides, verse 16 is intimately connected with the fol- 
lowing passage 1: 18-25, which is introduced by the sig- 
nificant statement: ‘‘Now these were the circumstances 
of the birth of Jesus Christ’’ (v.18). In the story that 
follows, the apologetic tendency is evident. Matthew 
wishes to defend the circumstances of the Saviour’s 
birth against slanderous reports spread by the Jews. 
This leads us to the conclusion that at the time when 
Matthew wrote his Gospel, Christians already believed 
in the Virgin Birth, because a knowledge of this belief 
is underlying the slanderous reports against which Mat- 
thew’s account is directed. The true facts of the 
Saviour’s birth are given by Matthew in the words of 
the angel addressed to Joseph: ‘‘That which is begotten 
in her comes from the Holy Spirit’’ (v. 20). 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 77 


Luke’s account of the Virgin Birth is entirely based 
upon the story of Mary (Luke 1: 26-38). The Virgin 
Birth is expressly referred to in verse 35: ‘‘The Holy 
Spirit will come over thee, and the power of the Most 
High will overshadow thee; for that reason the child 
will be called holy: the Son of God.’’ This is more ex- 
plicit than Matthew’s statement, for here the Lord’s 
Sonship is based upon His supernatural birth. 

The two accounts of the Virgin Birth in the Gospels 
of Matthew and Luke supplement each other. But how 
did they originate? Can we accept them as historical, 
or must we reject them as legendary and mythical? We 
do not intend to enter into a dogmatic discussion of the 
subject, but shall confine ourselves to the historical side 
of the question. 

The general trustworthiness of our Gospels is ad- 
mitted on all sides. Whatever modern critics may think 
of those who wrote the Gospels, they cannot deny the 
fact that our Evangelists wanted to tell the truth; nor 
can they deny the fact that our Evangelists were in a 
position to know the truth. Luke himself tells us that 
he ‘‘investigated it all carefully from the beginning’’ 
(Luke 1:3). He was therefore firmly convinced that 
his account of the Lord’s birth was in accordance with 
the facts. It is possible, of course, that he was mis- 
taken. But if Luke’s story of the Virgin Birth is re- 
jected as legendary, the question arises: Where did his 
story originate? Certainly not on Jewish soil because 
there are no foundations for it in Judaism. And yet 
Luke’s account points to a Jewish source. .And the 
same is true of Matthew’s account. It is true that ac- 
cording to Matthew the birth of the Saviour was the 
fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 7: 14: ‘‘The maiden 
will conceive and bear a son, and they will name him 


78 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


Immanuel’’ (Matt. 1:23). But according to Jewish 
belief the Messiah was not to be born of a virgin, and 
consequently Isa. 7:14 was not understood in the Mes- 
sianic sense, so that it cannot be argued that the belief 
in the Virgin Birth is the outgrowth of an Old Testa- 
ment prophecy. The legendary origin of the story of 
the Virgin Birth therefore breaks down from whatever 
point of view we may look at it. 

On the other hand, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth 
is in complete harmony with the New Testament con- 
ception of the Lord’s person. His whole being is per- 
meated by the Holy Spirit. He is one with God, and 
therefore without sin. He is anointed with the Holy 
Spirit when He is baptized, and He performs the work 
to which He is called, in the power of the Holy Spirit. 
Is it not reasonable, therefore, to assume that the Holy 
Spirit, who was with Him and upon Hin, was also the 
creative principle of His human life? 

The Synoptic accounts of the Lord’s public ministry 
agree in the statement that His own ministry was closely 
related to the mission and ministry of John the Bap- 
tist. In fact, the relation between the two is described 
by the Synoptists in such a way that John is char- 
acterized by them as the Lord’s forerunner who was 
sent to prepare the way for Him. This interpretation 
of the relation of Jesus and John rests upon the fact 
that Jesus presented Himself among those who were 
baptized by John, and that His baptism by John was 
His first public appearance which marked the beginning 
of His own ministry. It is therefore necessary to say 
a few words on the mission and ministry of John the 
Baptist. 

John began his career as a religious reformer. He 
reminds us of one of the great prophets in Israel like 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TM 


Amos and Isaiah. His striking personality, his ascetic 
life, and the peculiar character of his message, made a 
deep impression upon all classes of the people. His 
short career was abruptly ended, but his work was con- 
tinued by his disciples. 

The message of John had two distinct features: in 
the first place, he preached righteousness and judgment; 
in the second place, he proclaimed the coming of the 
Kingdom of heaven. Both sides of his message found 
their symbolic expression in the rite of Baptism which 
he introduced as a sign of repentance and faith. But 
the real significance of his message lay in the fact that 
he expected the glorious coming of the Kingdom in the 
immediate future. The mission of the Baptist may be 
summed up in the three words: Prophet, herald, witness. 

It is a most significant fact that the first step in the 
ministry of our Lord was an act of obedience to an or- 
dinance of God, which was instituted for sinners. The 
Lord’s own sinlessness was never questioned. Yet 
Jesus identified Himself with the mission and work of 
His forerunner, and the motive of His request, to be 
baptized by John, was the desire ‘‘to fulfill all righteous- 
ness.’’ Thus Jesus begins His own ministry as the sin- 
bearer of His people in the sense of Isaiah’s Servant of 
the Lord. At the same time He is made certain of His 
calling by the voice from heaven: ‘‘Thou art my beloved 
Son, in whom I am well pleased’’ (Mark 1:11). 

As the Lord’s Baptism is the divine call to His Mes- 
sianic work, so the Temptation in the wilderness is His 
first test. The voice from heaven is usually explained 
on the basis of Psalm 2:7, but it is also closely con- 
nected with Isaiah 42:1: ‘‘Behold, my Servant, whom 
I uphold, mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have 
put my Spirit upon Him.’’ When the Spirit leads Him 


80 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


into the wilderness, the Lord knows that He has been 
chosen to fulfill all righteousness. He has been assured of 
His Sonship. He has also been assured of His Messiah- 
ship. But the question is: How shall the Messiah do 
His work? Two different roads are before Him. The 
first is indicated by the attacks of Satan: it is the way 
of the world, and it leads to glory and power; but it is 
not God’s will and way. This way the Lord rejects, 
and instead of it He determines to follow the road that 
is pointed out to Him in the Word of God. Fully con- 
scious of the consequences to which His decision may 
lead Him, He resolves to put His trust in God, and be- 
comes obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 

Baptism and Temptation mark the beginning of the 
Lord’s public ministry. They also determine the nature 
of His ministry, as well as its ultimate aim and pur- 
pose. His ministry is a service which culminates in the 
giving of His own life: ‘‘The Son of man came not to 
be ministered unto, but to minister, and give His life a 
ransom for many’’ (Mark 10:45). Nor can there be 
any doubt as to the ultimate aim and purpose of such 
a service: ‘‘The Son of man is come to seek and to save 
that which was lost’’ (Luke 19:11). Thus the Messiah 
is primarily the Saviour, and as the Saviour He serves 
His people, both by word and deed. His ministry may 
therefore be divided into a ministry of the word and 
a ministry of mercy. Both are of equal importance for 
His Messianic work, as one interprets the other, and 
in both the Messiah gave Himself. (Matt. 4: 23-25; 
Matt. 11:2-5; Luke 4:17-21; Mark 1:39; Acts 1:1; 
Acts 10:38). 

The Lord’s ministry of mercy has its direct source 
in His deep human sympathy with the sufferings and 
afflictions of His fellow men. (Mark 6:34; 8:2; Matt. 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 81 


9:36; 14:14; 15:32; 18:27; 20:34; Luke 7:13). This 
sympathy creates in the hearts of those to whom it goes 
out, a desire to be helped by Him. It is often accom- 
panied by the word. But it is inherent in Him; it em- 
anates from His heart, and it finds a response in the 
heart of the person who is need of His help. It is the 
means by which a real living contact is established be- 
tween Himself and the object of His sympathy. It in- 
stills confidence, and although that confidence may not 
be faith in the full sense, it is the beginning of faith, 
or to say the least, it is the fertile soil in which true, 
genuine faith may be planted and may grow. But the 
Lord’s sympathy is not an empty sympathy; for wher- 
ever it finds a response, it is accompanied by the will 
to help, and this will to help, which is always one with 
the will of His Father in heaven, results in the act of 
mercy. To the observer these acts of mercy are miracles 
which prove the Lord’s supernatural power. But it is 
significant that Jesus Himself declined to be a mere 
miracle worker. His miracles point to His divinity, but 
His divinity does not depend upon His miracles. 
Intimately connected with the Lord’s ministry of 
merey, is His ministry of the word. In fact, we may 
say that Jesus was primarily the teacher. In the very 
beginning of His ministry, when His fame as a healer 
and physician had spread through the city of Caper- 
naum, Jesus withdrew, and when His disciples found 
Him, He said to them: ‘‘Let us go elsewhere, into the 
neighboring villages, that I may preach there also, for 
that is why I came out here’’ (Mark 1:38). We are 
often told in the Gospels that He went about, teaching 
in the synagogues, and preaching the Gospel of the 
Kingdom of God. His disciples and others addressed 
Him as rabbi or teacher, and the very name ‘‘disciple’’ 


82 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


implies that He was the teacher of those who followed 
Him; for a disciple is a learner or pupil. In the second 
half of His ministry the Lord devoted Himself especially 
to the instruction of His disciples, and on one occasion 
He said to them: ‘‘You shall not let anyone call you 
‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one teacher, and you are all 
brothers’’ (Matt. 23:8). In the garden Gethsemane He 
said to those who arrested Him: ‘‘Day after day I was 
with you in the temple teaching’’ (Mark 14: 48). 

What did Jesus teach? The Apostolic Church did 
not distinguish between the message of Jesus and its 
own message. It rather emphasized the unity and 
identity of both. For this reason our Evangelists have 
applied to the Lord’s teaching and preaching the mis- 
sionary terms ‘‘the word of God’’ (Luke 5:1) or ‘‘the 
Gospel’? (Mark 1:15). Yet it is an indisputable fact 
that Jesus did not preach the ‘‘Gospel’’ in the sense in 
which Paul preached it. Paul’s preaching of the Gospel 
centered in the death and resurrection of the Lord. In 
the teaching of Jesus Himself His death and resurrec- 
tion are clearly referred to only towards the end of 
His ministry. The reader who has followed our discus- 
sion, will readily understand the reason why this should 
be so: the message of salvation could not be proclaimed 
to the world before the Messiah had accomplished and 
finished His work. But a close examination of the 
Lord’s teaching will also establish the fact that the 
Church’s message of salvation is founded on the teach- 
ing of Jesus. 

In general it may be said that the Lord’s teaching is 
very comprehensive in its range and scope; it practically 
covers the whole field of God’s revelation in the Old 
Testament. In large measure this is due to the fact that 
His teaching was of an occasional character. 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 83 


Jesus is criticized by the scribes and Pharisees for 
His attitude to publicans and sinners. This criticism 
of His conduct calls forth the important statement that 
He came to call to repentance, not righteous but sinners 
(Mark 2:17). 

His disciples do not fast. Jesus justifies their con- 
duct by saying: ‘‘Can wedding guests fast while the 
bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the 
bridegroom with them they cannot fast’? (Mark 2:19). . 

He and His disciples are accused of breaking the Sab- 
bath. His answer is: ‘‘The Sabbath was made for man, 
not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of man is 
lord also of the Sabbath’? (Mark 2: 27f). 

The scribes from Jerusalem accuse Him of casting 
out demons in the power of Beelzebub, the prince of the 
demons. This charge is the occasion of the Lord’s great 
discourse on Satan’s kingdom. (Mark 3: 20-30). 

While teaching in a house in Capernaum He is in- 
formed that His mother and His brothers wish to see 
Him. We do not know the subject of His discourse. 
But the word which He spoke on that occasion, has been 
recorded: ‘‘Whosoever does the will of God, is my 
brother and sister and mother’’ (Mark 3: 35). 

It is no exaggeration to say that there is no import- 
ant religious question upon which the Lord’s teaching 
does not touch, or upon which it does not throw new 
light. 

In the method of His teaching the Lord adapted Him- 
self to His hearers. He made frequent use of parables 
and illustrations. But His aim was always the same: 
Not merely to instruct and to enlighten, but to lead men 
to the living God. When He taught He spoke as one 
who had authority, and the source of His authority was 
His perfect union with the Father. 


84 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


Yet the teaching of the Lord was not altogether new. 
It was based upon God’s revelation in the Old Testa- 
ment, and it was intended to bring out the true meaning 
of God’s revelation in the past. His teaching was both, 
reactionary and revolutionary. Revolutionary insofar 
as it departed from the teaching and practice of the 
scribes and Pharisees. Reactionary insofar as it had 
its source in the religion of the great prophets of Israel 
in the past. In this respect the teaching of the Lord 
may be summed up in the one word ‘‘righteousness,’’ 
the right attitude of man to his God. 

Intimately connected with the idea of righteousness 
in the teaching of Jesus is the idea of the Kingdom of 
God. This connection is clearly stated in Matt. 6:33: 
‘‘Seek ye first His Kingdom and His righteousness.’’ 
But it can be noticed in all His teaching, and it is the 
very center of the Lord’s own message. 

What is meant by ‘‘the Kingdom of God?’’ We have 
to distinguish between the popular meaning of the term 
and Jesus’ conception. 

At the time of Jesus the Kingdom of God, or the 
Kingdom of heaven, was an essential element of Jewish 
belief and hope. The idea itself sprang from the Jewish 
conception of God, and His relation to Israel as the 
chosen people of God, but the term was not coined until 
after the Exile, and was understood in the eschatological 
and apocalyptic sense (Daniel 2:44; 7:13f; 18:27). It 
had reference to God’s reign and rule by the Messiah, 
first over Israel, then through Israel over the whole 
world. 

Jesus proclaimed the coming of the Kingdom in terms 
and figures which were familiar to the people. But 
His own conception of the Kingdom was determined by 
His conception of God, just as His conception of God 


THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 85 


determined His idea of righteousness. Therefore the 
Kingdom of God is nothing external. It is God’s reign 
in the heart of man, which means the beginning of man’s 
fellowship with God. Man realizes that God is not in 
the far distance, but the God in Whose very presence 
we live and move. He realizes that God is our Father, 
and we are His children, and that the highest aim of 
God’s children is expressed in the words of Jesus: ‘‘Ye 
shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect’’ 
(Matt. 5:48). Peculiar to God’s children is first of all 
a spirit of humility: ‘‘Whosoever shall not receive the 
Kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise 
enter therein (Mark 10:15); and again: ‘‘Blessed are 
the poor, the meek, they that hunger and thirst after 
righteousness (Matt. 5: 3ff). This new spirit is also a 
spirit of absolute trust and complete surrender. God’s 
children cannot serve two masters; there can be no 
dualism in their lives; there must be sincerity of heart 
and singleness of purpose. God takes care of His chil- 
dren. Therefore it is unbelief not to trust in Him. This 
spirit of absolute trust finally expresses itself in the 
manner in which God’s children approach their Father, 
and in approaching Him rely wholly on His mercy. But 
the same spirit determines and governs also the attitude 
of God’s children to their brothers. The two command- 
ments, in which Jesus sums up all religion, are really 
one. In other words, the life with God regulates all 
other life-relations. The new spirit which is the begin- 
ning of God’s Kingdom, permeates and penetrates all 
spheres of human life and society, and eventually it 
must result in a new order of all things. Therefore the 
Kingdom is the greatest gift for which the disciples can 
pray, and it is also the highest good for which they can 
strive. 


86 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


However, the most important and essential feature in 
the Lord’s teaching concerning the Kingdom of heaven 
is His own relation to the Kingdom. It is God who es- 
tablishes the Kingdom. But He establishes it through 
the Messiah. Jesus’ Messianic self-consciousness is un- 
derlying His whole ministry, His ministry of the word 
as well as His ministry of mercy. John the Baptist 
pointed to ‘‘the coming man’’ who was to establish the 
Kingdom. Jesus pointed to Himself as the one who had 
been sent to establish the kingdom. For this reason the 
words of Jesus concerning Himself and His mission are 
the climax of His teaching, and His words concerning 
Himself and His mission culminate in the statement 
that the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but 
to minister, and to give Him life a ransom for many. 


THE NEW TESTAMENT IDEA OF FAITH 


ALBERT T. W. STEINHAEUSER 


The supreme need of the Church at all times has been 
a clear and firm grasp of the idea of faith. Faith is 
the very life breath of the Christian religion. Hence it 
is not enough to believe that we believe; it is necessary 
actually to have faith and to have it in deed and in truth. 
In view of this necessity it is surprising to note the 
vagueness that surrounds the term. A study of Chris- 
tian ideas would show that none of them has been sub- 
jected to greater fluctuation than the idea of faith. The 
problem is complicated by the fact that even in the New 
Testament writings it does not appear always to be 
used in a uniform sense. At the same time, through 
these writings as a whole, viewed historically, there does 
run, underneath all surface variations, a consistent use 
of the term. It is our purpose, in the following pages, 
to trace in outline the essential meaning of New Testa- 
ment faith. ‘There will be no attempt at exhaustive- 
ness; we shall pay particular attention to those writings 
in which the idea of faith plays a prominent part. 


I 


The study of faith in the gospels must begin and end 
with the person and work of Jesus. <A convenient 
starting point is offered by the passage in Heb. 12: 2, 
in which Jesus is called ‘‘the author and perfecter of 

87 


88 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


faith.’" The impression made by His life and career 
upon the writer of this great epistle, either through oral 
tradition or more probably through one of the gospels, 
was that of One whose entire ministry could be summed 
up in terms of faith.” This impression is borne out by 
the account given in the gospels of the life and work of 
Jesus. Not only is He in His own person and exper- 
ience the perfecter of faith, but in His public ministry 
He is seen as the author or founder of faith. The 
synoptic record, consisting of a more or less objective 
narrative, is corroborated and supplemented by the 
idealistic interpretation given in the Fourth Gospel, 
through which the faith and the unbelief elicited by 
Jesus run as a double leit motif. 

According to Mark 1:15 Jesus opened His public 
ministry with the proclamation of the appearance of 
the fulness of the time and the Kingdom of God, and 
with the twofold call to repentance and faith’ in the 
sphere of the gospel.’ In ‘‘repent’’ Jesus takes up the 


16 tho TioTEWS apyNyo¢ Kal TEAELWTHC. 

It has been disputed whether «apyvyéc should be rendered “author” 
(A. V.) or “captain” (R. V.).. The word occurs in both meanings 
but if we take into account the testimony of the papyri and in- 
scriptions, it seems that the former is the more accurate trans- 
lation here: cf. Moulton-Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek New 
Testament, i, 81, and Milligan, New Testament Documents, 75. 
This agrees better with the context of Heb. 12:2. Jesus, appearing 
in point of time after the heroes of faith in Heb. 11, could not well 
be called the leader of faith, while, as “the same yesterday, today, 
and for ever” (Heb. 13: 8), and as the final revelation of God (Heb. 
1: 1-2), He is properly the author or founder, as well as the per- 
fecter of faith. 

*We are not now concerned with the specific turn given in Heb. 
11:1 to the idea of faith, which was conditioned, as we shall see 
later, by the peculiar needs of the Christian community to which the 
epistle was addressed. 

3 meTavoeite Kai TLoTEvETE. 

*Thus the phrase éy Tg evayyeriy must be interpreted with 
Deissmann, Die neutestamentl. Formel “in Christo Jesu,” p. 46 
f. and Moulton, Grammar of New Testament Greek (3d ed.), i, 67-8. 
Cf. Cremer-Kogel Woerterbuch (10th ed.), 907. There is therefore 
not the slightest reason for suspecting the passage. 


THE NEW TESTAMENT IDEA OF FAITH 89 


message of the Baptist; ‘‘believe’’ represents His own 
particular message. And both repentance and faith, as 
He proclaims them, are to take place in the sphere, that 
is, under the influence of the gospel. In other words, the 
distinctive features of Jesus’ preaching are evangelic 
repentance and evangelic faith, as distinguished from 
legalistic or Old Testament repentance and faith.’ 

At the same time, the faith as well as the repentance 
that Jesus taught was not something radically new, but 
had its roots deep in the religion of the Old Testament. 
The idea of faith does not, of course, play in the Old 
Testament anything like the important part that it 
plays in the New. As Lightfoot says, ‘‘It is indeed a 
characteristic token of the difference between the two 
covenants, that under the Law the ‘fear of the Lord’ 
holds very much the same place as ‘faith in God,’ ‘faith 
in Christ,’ under the Gospel. Awe is the prominent 
idea in the older dispensation, trust in the later.’’ And 
yet it was a true instinct that guided the author of the 
epistle to the Hebrews when he drew up, in Chapter 11, 
his golden catalogue of Old Testament heroes of faith. 
The figure of Abraham, in particular, looms up as 
supreme hero of faith, not only in the Old Testament 
itself but in the thought of later Judaism. The classical 
passage ‘is Genesis 15:6—‘‘Abraham believed Jahweh, 
and it was accounted to him for righteousness.’” 


*For a fine discussion of the interrelation of this repentance and 
one ha Schlatter, Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments (1909), 
i, -4, 

6 éxiorevoev dé Abpau TO Oeq, Kai EAoyiobn avtys elc dixavoobynv. 

The Greek dative, though a weakened translation of the Hebrew 
3, which was }*92Nn_ denotes not mere intellectual belief but per- 
sonal trust, is quoted by Paul in Rom. 4:3 as sufficiently strong 
for his purpose. (Cf. other constructions with the dative in Acts 
7514; 18:8; Titus 3:8). Gen. 15:6 is assigned to the E source, 
while 7 ff. belong to J, which makes the faith passage all the 
stronger in that Abraham does not here require a sign. Cf. O. 
Procksch, Genesis (1917), 287. 


90 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


The amazing thing here is that, thus early and prac- 
tically at its first appearance, faith is set forth almost 
in its pure state, as a personal relation of trust in a 
personal God revealing Himself as gracious by means 
of a specific promise or gift. This trust of Abraham 
in Jahweh is imputed to him as righteousness, 7. é., as 
the equivalent of a God-pleasing life. With good rea- 
son, therefore, Paul cites this passage as a proof that, 
already in Genesis, a good life was based, in true 
evangelic fashion, upon no work or merit of man.’ That 
Jahweh was justified in thus estimating the faith of 
Abraham is proved by the latter’s willingness to sur- 
render the promised gift in supreme confidence in the 
Giver (Genesis 22). Thus, at the very beginning, the 
paradoxical or non-rational element in faith is set in 
the foreground. (Cf. Hebrews 11:17-19). 

It is not at all surprising that, in its later develop- 
ment, faith did not maintain itself at this ideal height. 
The specific gift by means of which God manifested 
His favor was only too often permitted to obscure the 
Giver and to become in itself the object of faith. The 
personal relation degenerated into national pride based 
on a conception of privilege and superiority. The em- 
phasis upon the Law gave rise to a growing dependence 
on man’s merit, ending in the mechanical piety of the 
Pharisees. The very Scriptures, in which God’s per- 
sonal revelation of grace was enshrined, were allowed 
to interpose themselves between the soul and its God,’ 
ending in the evils of Scribism (cf. John 5: 39-40). This 
led to an externalization of the idea of faith and of 
religion as such. The process of externalization was 





"See Kautzsch, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments, 164. 


“Cf. even Ps. 119: 66, where Jahweh, who was the object of 
Abraham’s faith, is displaced by the law. 


THE NEW TESTAMENT IDEA OF FAITH 91 


aided by the all too earthly colors in which the mes- 
sianic kingdom was conceived and described. It was 
only in great national crises, and in the experience of 
religious geniuses, that the faith of Abraham revived. 
Despite the idealism of prophets and psalmists,’ the 
religion of the people consisted in a commercial give 
and take between God and man. Just as God was sup- 
posed to be satisfied with man’s outward gifts, the bring- 
ing of animal sacrifices while the heart was far from 
Him, so man was thoroughly satisfied with God’s gifts 
without any effort to penetrate through them to the 
heart of the Giver. 

This whole development lay in the nature of the case. 
The faith of man is but the correlative of the grace of 
God. Hence it was impossible for faith to rise to its 
full stature until the grace of God appeared in such a 
way that His gift and person were one and the same 
and were no longer capable of being distinguished. In 
Jesus this grace of God appeared (Titus 2:11) in the 
form of faith itself. He is both the supreme manifesta- 
tion of the grace of God and the supreme expression 
of the faith of man. The master purpose of His life 
and work was, by bringing God into as close communion 
with man as He Himself experienced, to lift believing 
man to as close communion with God as His own. 


IT 


Thus Jesus arose with His message of faith, based 
on repentance, and existing in the sphere of the Gospel. 
As a wise householder, bringing forth out of his treas- 
ures things both new and old, He attached the new that 
He brought to the old that He found. Just as it was 





"@. @., Hosea 14: 2: Ps, 7383.85. 


92 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


necessary for Him to adopt the patois of Canaan in 
order to be understood of the people, it was necessary 
to take as His starting point the current conception of 
faith as confidence in a gracious God revealing Himself 
by means of a specific gift, which gift, as we have seen, 
had become largely externalized and mechanized. It 
was the method of Jesus to stoop to the level of the 
people in order to lift them gradually to His own high 
plane. 

In the life of the common people, among whom Jesus’ 
work chiefly lay, temporal blessings, such things as 
Luther finds symbolized in the ‘‘daily bread’’ of the 
fourth petition of the Lord’s Prayer, occupied an all- 
important place. Even in the Old Testament prayer 
book length of days, health, and temporal prosperity 
were regarded as invariable marks of divine favor.” 
On the other hand, poverty, disease, adversity, and 
brevity of life were considered marks of divine dis- 
pleasure. In practical experience, especially in the post- 
exilic period after the breakdown of the feeling of 
national privilege, and with the development of personal 
responsibility, this belief gave rise to the problem: why 
must the righteous suffer? Why do the ungodly flour- 
ish? In the book of Job the problem became acute, 
although no actual solution was reached. The begin- 
ning of a solution was foreshadowed in the experience 
of Jeremiah” and, under his influence, in the mysterious 
figure of the Suffering Servant in Second Isaiah. 

There was apparently a large number of persons in 
the days of our Lord, who, while not speculating on the 





*e. g., Ps. 91: 15-16. 

* Cf. Wellhausen, Israelitische und juedische Geschichte 148 f., and 
G. A. Smith, Jeremiah: the Baird Lecture,” lect. vii: The Story of 
His Soul. 


THE NEW TESTAMENT IDEA OF FAITH 93 


problem of evil in the spirit of those great writers, 
reflected the simpler piety of a group of psalms, and 
formed, as the late Professor William Sanday ex- 
pressed it, ‘‘the special seedplot of Christianity.’’ ‘‘It 
has been observed,’ writes Professor Sanday, ‘‘that 
there is a group of psalms (of which 9, 10, 22, 25, 35, 
40, 69, 109 are the most prominent) in which the words 
translated in EK. V. ‘poor,’ ‘needy,’ ‘humble,’ ‘meek,’ 
are of specially frequent occurrence. It appears that 
these words have acquired a moral meaning. From 
meaning originally those who are ‘afflicted’ or ‘op- 
pressed’ (by men), they have come to mean those who 
in their oppression have drawn nearer to God and leave 
their cause in His hands. They are the pious Israelites 
who suffer from the tyranny of the heathen or of their 
worldly countrymen, and who refuse to assert them- 
selves, but accept in a humble spirit the chastening 
sent by God. As there were many such in every period 
of the history of Israel, they may be said to form a 
class.’ It was to people of this class that Jesus ad- 
dressed the Beatitudes, promising the divine blessing 
to the poor, the mourners, the meek, the persecuted, and 
it was among them that most of His miracles were per- 
formed. 

From this point of view light falls upon the problem 
of ‘‘miracle faith.’’ It has become customary to dis- 
tinguish more or less sharply between ‘‘miracle faith”’ 
and ‘‘saving faith,’’? and to marvel at the predominance 
of the former, especially in the synoptic record. But 
the distinction is fallacious. The faith that Jesus de- 
manded and met in connection with His miracles was 





4“ Especially by Rahlfs and Driver. Cf. Hastings’ Dictionary of the 
Bible, iv, 19-20. 
8 Outlines of the Life of Christ, Ch. 8, pp. 22-23. 


94 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


not faith in the temporal blessing as such, nor the belief 
that He was able to perform miracles, but trust in God 
revealing Himself as gracious by means of a visible, tem- 
poral gift. If we bear in mind that, no matter how heroic- 
ally borne, poverty, disease (especially leprosy), and 
every sort of adversity could not but be regarded as 
marks of divine displeasure, it will become clear that the 
only way in which Jesus could awaken faith in a gracious 
God was by substituting for them equally tangible 
marks of divine favor and grace. In this sense John 
calls the miracles onveia, signs or marks of the grace 
of God revealed in and through Jesus. They were the 
signs by which the grace of God was manifested &« mloTews 
els TrloTL, 

In this connection the conversation between Jesus and 
Martha in John 11: 23-27 is most instructive. Jesus 
tells her, ‘‘Thy brother will rise again.’’ She replies 
that she knows that will happen at the last day. Jesus 
recalls her faith from the future to the present, and 
from the external miracle to Himself as living and per- 
sonal gift of God to her and her brother. He is the 
Resurrection and the Life; whoever believes in Him 
will live even though he die, and whoever lives and be- 
lieves in Him will not die eternally. To His question 
whether she believes this, Martha’s ‘reply tis, ‘‘Yea, 
Lord, I believe that Thou art the Christ, the Son of 
God, even He that cometh inta the world.’’ Here the 
so-called miracle faith is seen to be one with what is 
called saving faith. This is made still clearer by Jesus’ 
words to Martha, when, after the raising of the stone 
from Lazarus’ grave, she interposes. ‘‘Lord, by this 
time the body decayeth; for he hath been dead four 
days.’’ Jesus saith unto her, ‘‘Said I not unto thee, that 
if thou believedst, thou shouldest see the glory of God?’’ 


THE NEW TESTAMENT IDEA OF FAITH 95 


Jesus therefore refused to perform miracles, not only 
when the miracle as such was all that men sought, but 
when faith in a gracious God expressing Himself 
through the miracle was lacking. He marveled at the 
amiutia in Nazareth and could not, in accordance with 
His principles, perform any miracles there (Mark 
6:5-6). Conversely, He marveled at the trust of the 
Syrophenician (Mark 7: 24-30). In the latter instance 
we find faith almost in its pure state. By her national- 
ity this woman was outside the pale of Jesus’ messianic 
ministry, but her faith leaped the barrier and proved 
itself to be no mere clinging to a visible gift, but able 
to penetrate even to the thoughts in the heart of the 
Giver. Therefore Jesus declared it to be ‘‘great’’ and 
granted her ‘‘what she would.’’ Her companion in 
faith is the nobleman of Capernaum, at whose faith 
Jesus also marveled and the like of which He had not 
found in Israel (Matt. 8:10). 

But the clearest illustration is the incident of the 
man sick of the palsy in Mark 2:1-12. Jesus ‘‘sees’”’ 
the faith of the five men in the drastic measures the 
four bearers adopt, not without the consent of their 
sick friend, in order to reach Him, uncovering the roof 
and letting down bed and patient at His feet. Here, 
too, for the first, but doubtless not for the last time 
the spiritual miracle precedes the physical. Indeed, the 
latter seems to have been wrought for the sake of the 
scribes and Pharisees rather than for the palsied man 
himself. We might compare also the sharp distinction, 
in the story of the Samaritan leper, between being 
‘‘cleansed’’ and being ‘‘made whole’’ (Luke 17: 17-19). 

We are thus prepared to go a step farther and say 
that along with Jesus’ accommodation to the faith of 
His contemporaries, there went a constant effort to lift 


96 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


this faith to a higher level, transcending the merely 
temporal and visible, and to lead it from the gift to 
the Giver Himself. This is seen above all in His mak- 
ing repentance the necessary precondition of faith. 
Meravoeite kal smotevere that is, turn from self and the 
things of self to God.“ This tendency runs through 
Jesus’ whole teaching about faith. The Beatitudes, 
though addressed to the ‘‘poor,’’ promise only spiritual 
blessings. The entire Sermon on the Mount is con- 
cerned with the spiritualizing of the law of God and 
the life of man. All depends on a man’s personal re- 
lation to the will of the Father. The Father’s sov- 
ereignty and righteousness (what is sovereignty from 
the viewpoint of God is righteousness from that of 
man) are to be sought first of all, and everything tem- 
poral will be added. The petitions concerning the name, 
the kingdom, and the will of the Father in heaven pre- 
cede those that deal with daily bread and even with for- 
giveness and deliverance from evil. Throughout, the 
keyword is ‘‘Father.’’ This is Jesus’ great name for 
God. If God be conceived and experienced as Father 
in heaven, the childlike cheerfulness and confidence 
which is faith must follow. 

This lofty conception of faith occurs over and over 
again in the parabolic teaching of Jesus, in which the 
common events of everyday life are taken as symbols of 
the spiritual. The burden is, ‘‘If ye, being evil, know 
how to give good gifts to your children, how much more 
your Father who is in heaven!’’ This faith Jesus is 
never weary of proclaiming in season and out of sea- 
son. Where it is present all things are possible; in its 
absence He finds the source of all the ills of mankind. 





“ This formula underlies the prepositional phrase torevew ei¢ riva. 


THE NEW TESTAMENT IDEA OF FAITH 97 


’Amotia is for Him the one sin (John 16:9). When He 
chides the Apostles it is because of their odwyomcTia, 
because they trust God so little (Matt. 8:26; 14:31). 
When He encounters faith it is a high and holy day in 
His life. 

There is one passage in which the supreme value He 
placed upon faith is seen with particular clearness. It 
is His word to Peter in the night before His death. He 
foresees plainly what is coming—betrayal, flight, denial. 
All has been clearly foreshadowed in the quarrel as to 
which of the disciples is to be accounted greatest. Jesus 
tells Peter that Satan has obtained them by asking (cf. 
Job 1). As against the prayer of Satan, Jesus also has 
been praying for Peter, and the petition He made was 
not that Peter might not be tempted, nor even that he 
might not fall (for that would be a wholesome exper- 
ience), but that his faith might not fail. For Jesus the 
one important thing was that underneath all weakness 
and cowardice and disloyalty and profanity, there might 
remain in Peter’s breast a spark of faith capable of 
being fanned into a bright flame. In that case he would 
be able to strengthen his brethren, as he himself had 
been strengthened. 

As the faith that Jesus taught was antecedent and 
superior to all outward expression, it was also inde- 
pendent of the logical and rational. All things are pos- 
sible if one believes. The paradoxical, non-rational 
element in faith is strongly emphasized. For Jesus 
faith is removed as far as possible from mere intel- 
lectual belief. That is the meaning of the hyperbole in 
His saying, ‘‘If ye have faith as a grain of mustard 
seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence 
to yonder place, and it shall remove; and nothing shall 
be impossible unto you’’ (Matt. 17:20). There was no 


98 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


apologetic in Jesus’ teaching, no attempt to argue any- 
one into faith. Nicodemus, the master in Israel, is not 
the only one who has been taken aback by the non- 
rational element in our Lord’s teaching. For Him the 
antithesis of faith is not intellectual doubt, but moral 
stumbling (Matt. 11:6). The antithesis of letting one’s 
heart be troubled is to believe (John 14:1). ’Amoria 
is not doubt but lack of trust.” This is shown most 
plainly in the case of the woman with an issue of blood, 
who coming from behind touched the hem of Jesus’ gar- 
ment. So little rational was her faith that it was almost 
smothered in superstition, yet to the eye of Jesus it 
existed and by His mercy it made her whole (Mark 
5: 15-34). The non-rational element in Jesus’ teaching 
about faith is one of the main reasons why the common 
people heard Him gladly, and one of the secrets of His 
universal appeal. 


III 


Now, all Jesus’ teaching about faith is but the ex- 
pression of His own faith life. It is no theoretic doc- 
trine, but the warm and living outflow of His inner ex- 
perience. In every word that He spoke about faith 
there is felt the mighty throb of His own believing 
heart. This gives to His words their authoritative ring 
and their creative power. The effect of the faith of 
Jesus may be seen also in the childlike simplicity of 
His nature, in His humility and heroic strength, in the 
peace and joy that lay upon His whole life. But it is 





*“Auch von allen intellectuellen Anspriichen hat Jesus den 
Glauben befreit. Das kommt dadurch zur Bezeugung, dass er 
Heiden grossen Glauben zuerkennt, so mangelhaft ihre Gedanken 
uber Gott und den Christus gewesen sind. Weil sie in ihm mit 
Gewissheit Gottes Hilfe fassen, ist ihr Verhalten Glaube.”— 
Schlatter, Theol. des. N. T., i., 293. 


THE NEW TESTAMENT IDEA OF FAITH 99 


seen with especial clearness in His prayers. It is an 
incredible omission in theological literature that there 
is no adequate treatment of the prayer life of Jesus. 
Even in Friedrich Heiler’s magnificent book on prayer” 
only one page is devoted to the prayers of Jesus, while 
Paul is given two pages. The author has missed a 
golden opportunity, for certainly there is more to be 
learned from a study of Jesus’ prayer life than from 
all other researches in the history and psychology of 
religion. In 1899 Adolf Deissmann wrote for the 
“‘Christliche Welt’? an article entitled ‘‘Der Beter 
Jesus, ein vergessenes Kapitel der neutestamentlichen 
Theologte,’’ which is called by Heiler the most beau- 
tiful and profound discussion of prayer by any his- 
torian or psychologist. But it is merely a sketch. Its 
substance is made available for English readers in 
Deissmann’s ‘‘The Religion of Jesus and the Faith of 
Paul,’’ published early this year — a volume that is 
noteworthy for its sympathetic penetration into the 
religious life of Jesus.” 

A reverent study of the prayers of Jesus would lead 
into the very Holy of Holies of His faith, that living 
trust in a loving Father who heard Him always, that 
communion with God which has a faint parallel in the 
relation to Jesus of the beloved disciple. Is not this 
the meaning of the passage in the Fourth Gospel in 
which Jesus is said to have been, while on earth, in the 





“Das Gebet. Eine religionsgeschichtliche und _ religionspsy- 
chologische Untersuchung (5th werd 1923). / ‘i 

cies more popular work, with original treatment and many sug- 
gestive pages, is Prof. Jas. Alex. Robertson’s The Spiritual Pil- 
grimage of Jesus: the Bruce Lecture, 1917. There are several good 
pages on Das Beten Jesu in Feine, Die Religion des Neuen Testa- 
ments (1921), 172-6.—The approach to Jesus from the viewpoint 
of prayer bids fair to lead nearer than any other to the secret of 
His personality. 


100 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


bosom of the Father (John 1:18)? It is no wonder that 
the disciples, overhearing Him one day at His devotions, 
begged Him, ‘‘Lord, teach us to pray.’’ 

Indeed, long before the author to the Hebrews called 
Him the ‘‘Perfecter of faith,’’ He was looked up to on 
all sides as the Believer par excellence. As men listened 
to His words and observed His life, it seemed as though 
the days of Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah, and the great 
psalmists had returned. Only that He appeared to 
overtop them all. As the disciples asked Him, ‘‘Lord, 
teach us to pray,’’ because they coveted His fervor of 
prayer, so they asked Him, ‘‘Lord, increase our faith,’’ 
because they coveted the purity and strength of His 
faith. There is one pericope in particular that clearly 
illustrates this. At the foot of the Mount of Trans- 
figuration the father of the epileptic boy appeals to 
Jesus, ‘‘If Thou canst do anything, help us.’’ ‘‘If Thou 
canst!’’ is the reproachful answer. ‘‘He who believes 
can do anything.’’ Then the father cried, ‘‘Lord, I 
believe; help Thou mine unbelief.’’? That is to say: 
‘“T do believe, but compared with the energy of Thy faith 
my faith is the veriest unbelief; yet help even it.’” So 
profound was the impression made upon men’s hearts 
and minds by the faith of Jesus. They felt that He not 
only demanded their faith, but showed them how to 
believe. 

The faith life of Jesus reached its culmination in the 
days of His Passion. Here it endured its severest 
strain and attained its greatest strength. This is again 
seen with especial clearness in His prayers. As His life 
approaches and meets its supreme crisis, His prayers 
become more frequent and more fervent, and in them 





*Deissmann also uses this illustration, in his above-mentioned 
book, pp. 96-7. 


THE NEW TESTAMENT IDEA OF FAITH 101 


the throb of faith is more plainly felt. In the energy 
of prayer His faith enters into the most intimate com- 
munion both with the deepest needs and longings of 
man and with the saving will of God. One of the most 
significant prayers of the Passion is the above-men- 
tioned intercession for Peter, that his faith fail not. 
Such a prayer could have been offered only by one whose 
own trust in God was unshakable. The Synoptists em- 
phasize, in the Gethsemane agony, the passive side of 
Jesus’ faith; the fourth Evangelist, in the high priestly 
intercession, dwells upon its active character. Of the 
words on the cross, three are prayers. The first and 
last words are stamped with Jesus’ characteristic ad- 
dress, ‘‘Father.’’ The last word is a quotation from 
the Psalter with His own authentic ‘‘Abba’’ prefixed, 
whereby it becomes His very own, much as we turn the 
psalms into Christian prayers by adding the Gloria 
Patri. Most illuminating of all is the fourth word on 
the cross, where in the lowest depths of physical and 
mental anguish, and feeling Himself abandoned by God 
as well as by man, Jesus does not lose His faith, but 
with no token at all of divine favor, but every mark of 
divine displeasure, holds blindly, if we may so put it, 
to mere God. It is the supreme exemplification of the 
paradox of faith. In the moment of God-forsakenness 
Jesus experiences the perfection of communion with 
God. Here He becomes in very truth the ‘‘Perfecter 
of faith,’’ who carried trust in God to its supreme 
height. 

From this point of view another New Testament prob- 
lem appears not hopelessly insoluble, namely the ques- 
tion how Jesus, from being the Hero of faith, could 
become the Object of faith. No one has stated this 
problem more pointedly than the late Gottingen pro- 


102 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


fessor, Wilhelm Bousset, in his famous book, Kyrios 
Christos (1913). Bousset’s attempted solution of the 
problem cannot, however, be regarded as doing justice 
to all the facts. Whatever the influence of the hellen- 
istic mystery religions upon certain phases of New 
Testament thought and expression, there is in this par- 
ticular instance not the least occasion to go so far afield. 
It is only when a development cannot possibly be ac- 
counted for on inner grounds that one is justified in 
seeking for external influence. But that is emphatically 
not the case with the central fact of Christianity. From 
Jesus the Founder and especially the Perfecter of faith 
it is but a step to Jesus the Object of faith, particularly 
if we bear in mind two important facts. 

The first is the resurrection of Jesus, correctly un- 
derstood. The mere physical miracle has no more value 
than any other miracle of Jesus regarded as miracle. 
Of the Resurrection also His word is true, ‘‘Except ye 
see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.’’ His last 
beatitude concerns those who believe without having 
seen. The Resurrection, properly interpreted, is the 
vindication of Jesus’ faith. In it we have the crown- 
ing expression of divine favor. All other gifts of God 
whereby He revealed Himself as gracious are over- 
shadowed by this. ‘‘Thanks be to God for His unspeak- 
able gift.’’ God in love gave Jesus to the world (John 
3:16) not only in His birth but especially in His resur- 
rection. The gift is the Hero of faith, rewarded for a 
faith that was the most intimate communion with God. 
The gift becomes, therefore, so closely identified with 
the Giver that for faith there can no longer be any dis- 
tinction between the two. The transition from the faith 
of Jesus to the Jesus of faith is indicated not only in 
the Fourth Gospel, in which Thomas is portrayed as 


THE NEW TESTAMENT IDEA OF FAITH 103 


the first to call the risen Jesus his Lord and his God. 
It finds expression also in Matthew, who presents the 
risen Christ, to whom is given all authority in heaven 
and earth, sending His disciples to baptize into His 
name as equal with that of the Father and the Holy 
Spirit. 

But Jesus is never conceived as object of faith in such 
a way as to displace faith’s ultimate object, which is 
God. This is the second thing to be borne in mind. If 
this fact is given its full value, there can be no question 
of a deflection of the idea of faith from the synoptic 
Jesus to the «vpus of Paul and John. It is significant 
that these two writers, who place the very highest es- 
timate upon the person of Jesus, are the very ones who 
most clearly keep the ultimate object of faith un- 
obscured. Paul, in what is perhaps his most rapturous 
passage dealing with the «vpios ypictés, subordinates 
all ‘‘to the glory of God the Father’’ (Phil. 2:11). 
And John, in the passage in which he makes Jesus 
directly co-ordinate faith in Himself with faith in the 
Father (John 14:1) leaves no doubt as to the distinc- 
tion. In the light of John 14:6, ‘‘Believe in God, be- 
lieve also in me’’ can mean only, ‘‘Believe in God as 
the goal of your way, believe in me as the way to your 
goal.’’ 

Our interpretation is confirmed by a study of faith 
In the Acts of the Apostles, especially in the earlier half 
of the book. Indeed, the whole book of the Acts pre- 
sents the religious life of the early Christians as the 
result of the activity of the ascended Christ working 
through the instrumentality of the Apostles. While the 
first volume of Luke’s great historical work dealt with 
‘fall that Jesus began both to do and to teach,’”’ the 
second volume records the Acts of fhe ascended Lord. 


104 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


Not only does faith perform miracles through the 
name of Jesus (Acts 3:16; 4:30), but there is no other 
name under heaven given among men whereby we must 
be saved (Acts 4:12). Peter’s command on the day 
of Pentecost, ‘‘Be baptized into the name of Jesus,’’ is 
in effect a resumption of Jesus’ message, ‘‘Repent and 
believe’? (Mark 1:15). He is Lord of all (Acts 10: 36). 
The faith of the early Christians was faith in Jesus. 
This is revealed in their prayers. Stephen’s dying word, 
‘‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,’’ is the first prayer 
addressed to the heavenly Lord. Here Jesus is both 
object and exemplar of faith, as Stephen addresses 
directly to Him the petition He addressed to the Father. 
Christians are known as those who call on the name of 
the Lord (Acts 9:14, 21; 22:16). 

At the same time, faith in Jesus and prayer to Him 
are not permitted to displace God as the ultimate ob- 
ject of both faith and prayer. It was God, as Peter 
declares in his pentecostal discourse, who approved 
Jesus by powers and wonders and signs which God did 
by Him, and it was God who raised Him up (Acts 2: 
22-23). ‘*God made Him both Lord and Christ’’ (2: 36). 
“‘The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the 
God of our fathers, hath glorified His Servant Jesus”’ 
(Acts 3:18). The message of the Apostles is the Word 
which God sent forth, preaching the Gospel of peace 
through Jesus Christ (Acts 10:36). Though Stephen’s 
prayer to Jesus was not without successors, yet prayer 
was addressed as a rule to the Father. The believers 
(Acts 2:47) and the lame man (Acts 3:8, 9) praise 
God. The prayer before the election of Matthias is 
offered to God. The beautiful congregational prayer 
in 4: 24-30 ends with the formula, ‘‘in the name of Thy 
holy Servant Jesus.’’ Both the address and the close 


THE NEW TESTAMENT IDEA OF FAITH 105 


are altogether in the spirit of Jesus, who, according to 
the Fourth Gospel, enjoined prayer to the Father in His 
name. 

Thus it appears that pre-Pauline Christianity held 
fundamentally to the same conception of faith as Paul, 
and that the fuller development in the Pauline epistles, 
though bearing the peculiar stamp of the Apostle’s re- 
ligious genius, by no means denotes a deflection of the 
idea of faith. 


IV 


Paul is pre-eminently the Apostle of faith. In his 
epistles we find the most complete and many-sided 
elaboration of the idea of faith. Although, as we should 
expect in the case of so original a genius, there are dis- 
tinctive features, the development as a whole lies 
altogether along the line which we have traced in the 
Gospels and the Acts. Paul’s distinctive contribution 
is conditioned by the peculiarity of his personal exper- 
ience and by the antithesis of the Judaizers. 

Ever since the day at Damascus, when God shined 
in Paul’s heart revealing His glory in the face of Jesus 
Christ, for Paul to live was Christ. What God had been 
to Jesus, Jesus became to Paul. Hence Professor Deiss- 
man can formulate very correctly the subtitle of his 
latest book in the parallel phrases, ‘‘The Communion 
of Jesus with God and the Communion of Paul with 
Christ.’’ It is the merit of Deissmann to have pointed 
out the crucial importance of the phrase ‘‘in Christ,’’ 
in which the faith of Paul finds its characteristic ex- 
pression. The classical passage is Galatians 2:20, ac- 
cording to which Paul stood in such intimate com- 
munion with Christ that he could say interchangeably, 
“‘Christ lives in me,’’ and ‘‘I live in Christ.’’ His en- 


106 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


tire life was contained within the sphere of faith, ‘‘the 
faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Him- 
self for me.’’ Deissman finds in the genitive used with 
miotts only another form of the prepositional phrase 
with ¢«v and calls it attractively a ‘‘genttivus com- 
munionis’’? or a ‘‘mystical genitive.’’ Whether this 
relation to Christ is correctly termed mysticism, may be 
doubted; it is perhaps better to speak of a mystical 
element in Paul’s religion. Certainly the characteristic 
marks of what is technically called mysticism are lack- 
ing,” and it is impossible to trace in the Pauline idea of 
faith any definite influence by the mystery religions.” 
The fellowship of faith with the heavenly Jesus makes 
Paul a sharer in all that Jesus did and is. This is ex- 
pressed in the most vivid and realistic fashion. The 
Christian has been crucified with Christ, he has died 
with Christ, he has been buried with Christ, he is risen 
with Christ, he sits in heavenly places with Christ. In 
short, he has become, in Luther’s graphic phrase, ‘‘ein 
Kuchen mit Christo.’’ Yet, so far from being absorbed, 
in genuine mystical fashion, in the divine, and losing 
his own personality, Paul is not only in Christ, but 
Christ lives in him. His communion with Christ be- 
comes therefore a communion with man, after the ex- 
ample and by the power (the Spirit) of Christ. His 
faith, in other words, is a faith that worketh by love. 
Hence Paul the Apostle of faith sings the great pan 
of Christian love (I Corinthians 13). The profound 
christological passage in Philippians 2 has for its im- 
mediate purpose the practical admonition to have ‘‘the 





* Heiler, in the latest edition of his book, Das Gebet, directly con- 
trasts “Mystik” and “Glaubensfrémmigkeit.” 

nad OF W. H. P. Hatch, The Pauline Idea of Faith in its relation 
eee ae and Hellenistic Religion (Harvard Theol. Studies, ii), 


THE NEW TESTAMENT IDEA OF FAITH 107 


same mind’’ that was in Christ Jesus, just as in every 
Pauline epistle the doctrinal part is followed by a prac- 
tical application to everyday life. 

The Philippian passage is important in another re- 
spect, as we have seen. It brings out the fact that with 
all his ‘‘Christ-mysticism’’ Paul never loses sight of 
God as the ultimate object of faith. If all things belong 
to Paul, and Paul belongs to Christ, Christ belongs to 
God (I Corinthians 3: 22-23). His faith clings ulti- 
mately to the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our 
Lord, from which he is persuaded that nothing shall ever 
separate him (Rom. 8: 38-39). This is confirmed by a 
study of Paul’s prayers. Although in II Corinthians 
he prays, in the spirit of his predecessor Stephen, to 
Jesus Himself, his prayers are generally addressed to 
God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

Such a conception of faith is by its very nature re- 
moved as far as possible from mere intellectual belief. 
It includes the element of knowledge, indeed one of its 
master passions is to know the love of Christ, but this 
love passeth knowledge (Eph. 3:19), as the peace of 
God passeth all understanding (Phil. 4:7). It is true 
that faith” comes by hearing, but hearing comes by the 
Word of Christ, in which He imparts His very self, not 
information about Himself (Romans 10:17). In the 
phrase 4avaroyia tis mictews (Romans 12:6) faith is 
emphatically not the fides quae creditur, but the per- 
sonal trust of the heart in God. According to the meas- 
ure in which it has been imparted to them (verse 3) 
Christians are to prophesy. When Paul refers to Chris- 
tian yveo.s he is deliberately opposing faith to a false 
yoo. In the same spirit he speaks ironically of the 


* There is not the slightest reason for translating tiorve in this 
passage by “belief,” as in the R. V. 


108 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


‘foolishness of preaching.’’ For those for whom old 
things have passed away and all things become new, it 
is impossible to know «ata odpxa (II Corinthians 
5: 16-17). 

Paul’s conception of Justification by faith was 
brought into the foreground by his polemic against the 
Judaizers. But it is hardly correct to say with Deiss- 
man that ‘‘the fact that it is so prominent in Paul’s 
letters that have come down to us, has less an inner 
than an outer cause.’” The struggle with the Judaizers 
had necessarily to be fought out first in the mind of 
the Apostle, that ‘‘Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touch- 
ing the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the 
church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, 
blameless’’ (Phil. 3:5-6). Indeed, the whole intimate 
personal confession in Philippians 3 is worthy of care- 
ful study and shows the close relation between justifica- 
tion by faith and Paul’s so-called mystical experience. 
It was just because Paul took with the utmost serious- 
ness the grace of God, of which he found in Jesus the 
supreme expression, that for him faith was always 
justifying faith. This side, indeed, can never be lacking 
in faith, which is but the correlative of the free grace 
of God. Hence Paul can appeal in confirmation of his 
experience to the faith of Abraham. The specific 
formulation of his doctrine and the elaborate technique 
of his polemic may be owing to ‘‘an outer cause,’’ but 
the conception itself of justifying faith can have none 
but an inner cause. After all, it was Luther who best 
understood Paul when, in the stress of his search for a 
gracious God, and in the joy of his discovery, he found 
in justification by faith the heart and center of Pauline, 





“The Religion of Jesus and the Faith of Paul, 271. 


THE NEW TESTAMENT IDEA OF FAITH 109 


and indeed of New Testament, religion. ‘‘The only fit 
commentator on Paul,’’ as Coleridge said, ‘‘was Luther 
—not by any means such a gentleman as the Apostle, 
but almost as great a genius.’ In fact, the paragraphs 
on faith in Luther’s preface to Romans, in his New 
Testament translation of 1522, are a complete summary 
of the Pauline conception of faith. 


Vv 


When we come to the four New Testament writings 
that stand last in Luther’s German Bible—Hebrews, 
James, Jude, and Revelation—we are compelled to say 
that they appear, also from the viewpoint of faith, as 
deutero-canonical. 

The epistle to the Hebrews comes closest to the con- 
ception of faith that we have found in the Gospels, the 
Acts, and in Paul. But the great faith-chapter (11) 
stands out so prominently that it overshadows all else 
and imposes its peculiar quality upon the epistle as a 
whole. The so-called definition of faith in Hebrews 
11:1 is really not a definition at all, but a description 
of faith as faithfulness, in the spirit of Habakkuk 2: 4, 
which passage is quoted in its original meaning at the 
close of chapter 10. This treatment of faith is con- 
ditioned by the practical needs of the Christian com- 
munity which the author is addressing. He writes to 
Christians in danger of relapsing” and undertakes to 
show them not only the superiority of the Gospel of 





* Table Talk, entry of June 15, 1533. 

*The specific purpose of Hebrews is admirably set forth in Rig- 
genbach’s treatment of the epistle in Zahn’s Kommentar zum Neuen 
Testament (1923). James Moffatt’s exposition of Hebrews in the 
International Critical Commentary series, just announced, has not 
yet arrived. 


110 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


Jesus to Old Testament religion, but its fulfilment of 
all that was best in that religion. How shameful, then, 
if Christian believers should fall behind the saints of 
the Old Testament! The faith of the latter, and indeed 
faith as such, has always had in it the element of bold- 
ness and patient endurance, of certainty and unshaken 
hope. Hence the catalogue of heroes and heroines of 
such faith, surrounding the Christian believer like a 
crowd of spectators in the amphitheatre, and cheering 
him on. Of this faith Jesus is the author (as He is 
the author” of salvation in 5:9) and the perfecter. 
However moving this appeal, and however necessary 
this emphasis on the heroic constancy of faith, the 
‘‘definition’’ is unfortunately worded. To speak of the 
object of faith as a neuter plural (éAmdoyeva) and 
as things ( 7payyata ) is certainly a departure from the 
essential idea of faith as personal trust in a gracious 
God.” It is true that elsewhere in the epistle we have 
‘faith in God’? (mortis eri Oedv 6:1), and in 13:8, 
as a sort of climax, the watchword: ‘‘ Jesus Christ, the 
same yesterday, and today, and for ever.’’ Yet chapter 
11 gives its character to the epistle as a whole. So 
that faith becomes practically synonymous with hope. 
Indeed, these two terms are used interchangeably in 
6:11 (‘‘fulness of hope’’) and in 10:22 (‘‘fulness of 
faith’’). And in 10:23 there is the admonition, ‘‘Let 
us hold fast the confession of our hope.’ 





25 Airtoc, 

* Cf. also Heb. 11:3 and 6.—I have just seen the latter passage 
quoted under a beautiful picture entitled “Faith,” and portraying 
a young maiden with hands clasped across her breast and eyes raised 
to heaven. There can hardly be a more serious distortion of the idea 
of faith than this. 

* The curious mistranslation in A. V., “the profession of our faith,” 
is apparently without manuscript authority. It seems to be either 
ahd of the King James revisers or a printer’s error. Tyndale has 
‘hope.’ 


THE NEW TESTAMENT IDEA OF FAITH 111 


This emphasis on the ‘‘hope’’ side of faith appears 
also in First Peter,” and to such an extent that Peter 
has traditionally been accepted as the Apostle of hope.” 

The epistle of James represents a more strongly 
marked deviation from the prevailing New Testament 
idea of faith. We can understand how Luther, coming 
from Paul to James, could not but speak of the latter 
as ‘‘an epistle of straw,’’ with scarcely any of the marks 
of the Gospel. In itself the epistle is one of the most 
valuable books of the New Testament. ‘‘The worst of 
James,’’ writes a distinguished English novelist and 
autobiographer,” ‘‘was that, when a sermon was 
preached from his Epistle, there was always danger lest 
somebody in the congregation should think that it was 
against him it was leveled.’’ It is only from the view- 
point of faith that its limitations appear. 

There is a single reference to ‘‘the faith of our Lord 
Jesus, who is the Glory’’ (2:1), and in 1:6 the faith 
of prayer, as in 5:15 the prayer of faith, is emphasized. 
But the epistle takes its tone from the discussion of 
faith in chapter 2, and here the conception of faith 
hardly rises above that of mere intellectual belief. 
‘‘The demons also believe, and shudder’ may pos- 
sibly be meant as bitter irony heaped upon an imag- 
inary opponent, and Moffatt’s rendering of verse 18 
is very attractive; and yet the whole argument in this 





* See I Peter 1: 21; 3: 5, and especially 3: 15, where “a reason for 
the hope that is in us” is a close parallel to “the confession of our 
hope” (Heb 10: 23). 

” Cf. the magnificent burst of praise in 1: 8 ff. 

* William Hale White in the Early Life of Mark Rutherford. 

ae Tyndale, contrasting Paul and James, says in his quaint style: 
“The devil hath no promise; therefore he is excluded from Paul’s 
faith. The devil believeth that Christ died, but not that He died 
for his sins.”—The Obedience of a Christian Man (toward the close 
of chapter xii, The Duty of Kings,” etc.). 


112 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


chapter loses its point unless we assume that the writer 
shares his opponent’s notion of faith. Anyone, no mat- 
ter how firmly he holds to faith as an active principle, 
who can compare it to the body while he compares works 
to the animating spirit, is operating, to say the least, 
with an emasculated idea of faith. And to speak of 
faith as being ‘‘completed’’ ( éredke@n ) by works 
(2:22) is to set in motion a trend of thought that is 
bound to work havoc in the development of Christian 
doctrine. 

The writer of this article may be pardoned, and per- 
haps even thanked, if he sets down here Luther’s written 
notes on the margin of his copy of the New Testament 
(1530), as published in the Weimar edition of his works, 
“‘ Deutsche Brbel,’’ volume iv (1923). 

Ad 1:6—‘‘Optimus unus locus huius Epistolae.’’ 

2:12—Also redet und also thut. ‘‘Ey welch ein 
Chaos.’’ 

2:19—Dass ein einiger Gott ist; ‘‘und nicht viel von 
Christo.”’ 

2:22—Und durch die Werke, jist der Glaube voll- 
kommen worden; ‘‘ja das reimet sich fein.’’ 

2: 24—‘‘ Falsum.’’ 

2:26—Denn gleich wie der Leib on Geist, ete. ‘‘O 
ein schon Gleichniss, wende dich Freyheit.’’ 

2:26—Also auch der Glaube ohne Werke, ete. 
‘*Also sind die Werke ohne Glauben todt.’’ 

3:1—Unterwinde sich nicht iederman; ‘‘utinam nec 
tu.t} 

5:16—Des Gerechten Gebet. ‘‘Hic optimus est locus 
in tota hac Epistola.’’ 

The intellectualizing of faith in James must be care- 
fully distinguished from the emphasis that falls in 
First John, as in the Fourth Gospel, upon ‘‘know- 


THE NEW TESTAMENT IDEA OF FAITH 113 


ledge.’’ As we have seen in discussing Paul, this is a 
deliberate setting of faith as true you over against 
the false you of the time. The co-ordination of 
knowing and believing the love of God, in I John 4: 16, 
has its parallel in Ephesians 3:19.” A faith that con- 
sisted in mere intellectual belief could not possibly be 
called ‘‘the victory that has overcome the world’’ (I 
John 5:4). 

In the little letter of Jude we have a hardening of 
the idea of faith into the idea of Christian doctrine 
or tradition.” ‘‘The faith once for all delivered unto 
the saints’’ (verse 3), for which the readers are to con- 
tend earnestly, and ‘‘your most holy faith’? (20), on 
which they are to build themselves up, can mean noth- 
ing else than the “‘ fides quae creditur.’’ 

In the Revelation works play an important part, in 
the spirit of James,” and faith is practically synonymous 
with faithful endurance, after the fashion of Hebrews.” 
In 14:12 the ‘‘objective faith’’ of Jude reappears. The 
saints are commended as ‘‘those who kept the com- 
mandments of God and the faith of Jesus’’ (ef. 12:17). 
Not only are works and faith combined here in typically 
Jewish fashion,” but faith as credenda is subordinated 
to the law as agenda. This is thoroughly in the spirit 
of Jude, and forms with that epistle the lowest point 
in the development of the New Testament idea of faith. 





ie. Akaebiy IY Sy 


“Cf. Mayor, The Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of 
St. Peter” (1907), pp. 60-71. 


* Rey. 2:.293114218 =) 20 8129195122 "'12. 
eva: 10,1o*. oheateeOsil esi 4s 195,110 
* Cf. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums, 225 f. 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 
A Srupy 1x Doematics 
Joun C. Martes 


‘‘Did God let down from heaven a barren dogma in 
order to establish His Church on earth? Why did the 
Only-begotten have to come in the flesh? Why did His 
disciples boast of the fact that they had touched and 
handled Him?’’ At talented writer of a former gen- 
eration asks the question, and answers it by saying, 
‘Because the physically visible Lord wished also to 
establish a visible Body of the Church, growing out of 
Himself (the corn of wheat), as a spiritual-corporeal 
organism.’” However much we might question some 
of Rocholl’s positions, we must acknowledge the fact 
that the Church is a living reality, and that the doctrine 
of the Church can only be understood in the light of 
accomplished facts and in connection with our Lord’s 
earthly life. The Church is a great historic fact and 
not a mere offspring of theological speculation. Most 
of the prevalent errors concerning the doctrine of the 
Church have come from the neglect of its historic char- 
acter as given in Scripture. That lack of historic com- 
prehension shows itself in the various additions and 
subtractions of current teachings. Rome, with her 
pseudo-historical traditions, her legendary additions 
and her fiction of an unwritten revelation, that now finds 





* Rudolf Rocholl, Hinsame Wege, Leipsic, 1898. II, p. 337. 
114 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 115 


expression through a special papal inspiration, is just 
as hopelessly unhistorical as the latest sect that tries 
to establish a Church de novo. 

To understand the doctrine of the Church we must turn 
back to our Lord’s own mission of redemption. In the 
New Testament we will find the nature of the Church 
gradually unfolded before us like the blossoming of a 
beautiful flower. First we see it in the bud, yet un- 
opened, as we discover it in the implications and intima- 
tions of our Lord’s life and teaching, that finally come 
to explicit declarations. Then we behold it expanding 
in all its beauty and loveliness in the apostolic under- 
standing that followed the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, 
and finally we experience it as a present reality of un- 
fading beauty, that is filling all the earth with its divine 
fragrance—the sweet smelling savour of a heavenly 
grace. 

So the Church is historic not only in the sense of being 
a certain institution that appeared at a given time in 
history but also as a present reality, that grows out of 
the historic facts of redemption and is inextricably as- 
sociated with all of them. It does not spring from some 
thesis found in the preaching of Paul nor has it 
developed from some mystical ideas taught by John, 
but it is a part of the historic activity of Jesus Christ 
and by an inner necessity is included in His redemptive 
mission. It must be understood, not as a separate locus 
(Protestant scholasticism), nor as the foundation of a 
theological system (Rome), nor even as the expression 
and outcome of a subjective relation (Schleiermacher), 
but as an integral part of God’s providential order and 
as an indissoluble factor of the whole plan of salvation. 


116 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


J. THe CuHurcH as INcLUDED IN THE Mission 
oF JESUS CHRIST 


I, THE FIRST INTIMATIONS IN THE GOSPELS 


The Church and the Kingdom 


Here, in the consideration of the mission of Christ, 
we must gain our first understanding of the Church, but 
not a complete comprehension of its nature, which is 
only unfolded in the course of historic revelation. This 
revelation, coming in progressive steps, is bound up 
with the gradual revelation of the Holy Trinity to man- 
kind. First, through primitive revelation, and through 
the law and the prophets, had come the revelation of the 
will of God towards men; then, in the person of the In- 
carnate Logos, the revelation of His work for men, and 
last, through the outpouring and continued presence of 
the Holy Ghost, the revelation of His activity within the 
hearts of men. Tull this latter stage was reached it was 
as impossible to make men understand the complete doc- 
trine of the Church as it was to teach them a complete 
doctrine of the atonement. In both cases the necessary 
historic events had to come first. That is perhaps the 
reason why our Lord is so fond of using the term the 
Kingdom of God, or of Heaven, rather than the expres- 
sion the Church, while with the Apostles the situation 
is exactly reversed. They speak of the Church rather 
than of the Kingdom.’ The Kingdom of God is the most 





*In the Gospels the word ékxAycia is used only twice (Matt. 
16: 18 and 18: 17) while in the rest of the New Testament (omitting 
Acts 7:38; 19:32, 39, 41, and Hebrews 2: 12; 12:28) it occurs 
109 times. On the other hand the word faovAeia is used 109 times 
in the Gospels, referring to God’s Kingdom, while in all the rest 
of the New Testament it is only used 27 times for the same purpose. 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 117 


general and comprehensive term for the whole of God’s 
plan of redemption and the divine power that will ac- 
complish it. It includes everything from the eternal 
decrees of God to the ultimate Parusia. How it is prior 
to the establishment of the Church and includes those 
who preceded Pentecost is seen in Matt. 8:11; 
Luke 13:28; Matt. 11:12; Luke 16:16; while the 
apocalyptic discourses show how it is concerned not 
only, like the Church, in the final perfection of men’s 
souls but that it involves a new heaven and a new earth, 
together with the absolute and final overthrow of the 
opposing powers of evil. The Church is concerned in 
liberating and delivering the souls of men from the 
dominion of the ever-present powers of evil. After that 
work of the Church is completed the final triumphant 
coming of the Kingdom still requires the elimination of 
those powers from the possibility of any contact with 
the redeemed, their final punishment together with the 
souls of the unbelieving. Between these two limits, as 
far as revelation gives any intimations, the Kingdom of 
God and its organ, the Church, are identical. 

The Church, on the other hand, is the activity of God’s 
Kingdom as it comes into actual contact, either for good 
or for evil, with humanity; a contact which in its pres- 
ent form was not permanently established till the day 
of Pentecost. With this in mind we can readily see how 
the teaching of Christ must be supplemented and inter- 
preted by that of the Apostles, but the fact of the Church 
is so completely included in the mission of Christ that 
even without any apostolic teaching on the subject we 
would be forced to recognize the necessity of its ex- 
istence. The Apostles wrote about the Church not for 
the purpose of establishing it, but because it had already 
come into being and they were a part of it. We turn 


118 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


then to a consideration of our Lord’s mission as we 
learn it from His own words and deeds. 


CHRIST’S MISSION AS DESCRIBED BY HIMSELF 


When we turn to our Lord’s simplest declarations 
concerning His mission we find at once clear statements 
of its spiritual and redemptive purpose that is to be ac- 
complished by the preaching of the truth; the proc- 
lamation of God’s revelation to the world. No rising 
tide of popularity can hold Him in one place but He 
must hurry on to the next towns ‘‘that I may preach 
there also: for therefore came I forth.’’ (Mark 1: 38, 
Luke 4: 43-44). The inquiry of John the Baptist con- 
cerning His Messiahship is answered not only by the 
evidence of miracles of mercy but by the fact of the 
blessings of the Gospel, that are imparted only through 
Him (Matt. 11:4-6; Luke 7: 22-23). The final goal 
of His mission is the redemption of mankind and His 
work is to minister salvation as well as to procure it 
Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45). The prophetic an- 
nouncements of salvation are realized in His activity 
(Luke 4:21), and that activity a quest of the lost, a 
going out to bring back the wanderers (Luke 19:10, 
Matt. 18:11). This mission of salvation was to result 
in the gathering together of the redeemed, for even in 
this world the mission of Jesus brought visible results. 
It soon gathered a band of disciples for whom He prays 
that they may be kept united in one fellowship (John 
17: 4-6, 21), but this fellowship of a few Jewish dis- 
ciples is not to be the end of His work. In the same 
prayer He includes those who shall believe through the 
disciple’s word and elsewhere expressly states that out- 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 119 


siders are to be added to their number (John 10:16). 
One thing that the Lord particularly stressed concern- 
ing His mission was its divine origin and authority. The 
people who heard Him were not mistaken in the impres- 
sion they received of His teaching (Matt. 7: 28-29; 
13: 54; Mark 1:22; 6:2; Luke 4:32), for He ex- 
pressly insists on His authority. This authority not 
only makes Him superior to the Sabbath (Matt. 12: 
6-8; Mark 2:28) and qualified to determine what 
should be allowed in the temple (John 2:13-17; Matt. 
21:12; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45, but by virtue of its 
possession He forgives sins (Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10; 
Luke 5:24; 7:48), He claims to be the only source of 
life, truth and salvation (John 14:6), His teaching will 
be the basis of the future judgment (John 12: 47-49), 
and in that judgment He will have part (John 5: 
27; Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69), indeed 
He Himself will be the Judge (Matt. 19: 28; 25-31 seq.). 
All this is based on the fact that He is from above (John 
8:23), and that He has been sent from God (John 3:2; 
4:34; 5:30; 6:38), who has given all things into His 
hands (Matt. 11:27; 28:18; Luke 10:22; John 3:35; 
13:3), that He might bring salvation to all mankind. 

So our Lord’s mission was a mission of holiness that 
was effective. Its power lay not simply in an appeal to 
the understanding of men but in a real spiritual power 
overcoming the powers of darkness, particularly in the 
driving out of demons, and a power that could on oc- 
easion be delegated to His disciples, but that resided 
in the person of Christ, that was communicated some- 
times by word and sometimes by touch and even by a 
mere expression of His will, but which was always used 
for the work He had been commissioned to do. 


120 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


CHRIST’S MISSION AS DESCRIBED BY OTHERS 


While others were particularly impressed by the 
power He manifested (Matt. 8:27; Mark 4:41), they 
also appreciated how important His teaching was to 
His mission and by their association of the two in many 
references show that they understand His significance 
as a teacher as well as one posessed of divine powers 
(Matt. 4:23; 9:45; Mark 1:14; 6:5-6; Luke 8:1). 
Indeed, John the Baptist stated that His mission will 
result in the separation of good and evil (Matt. 3: 
11-12; Luke 3:16-17), and that it had as its purpose 
redemption from sin (John 1: 29). 


CHRIST’S MISSION AS IT INVOLVES A DISCIPLESHIP 


When we turn to the Gospel accounts of the manner 
in which the Lord carried out His mission, we find that 
an outstanding characteristic of His activity is the fact 
that, while He alone can effect His purposes, He never- 
theless gathers to Himself certain chosen disciples, 
whose duty it is not only to hear and learn but also to 
become apostles to others. The very beginning of His 
public career is marked by the calling of a special group 
of disciples. Immediately after the Baptism certain 
inquirers are invited to ‘‘come and see’’ (John 1: 
30-51). After the temptation and with the beginning 
of His active ministry He selects the first of the Apostles 
with the express promise that they shall have the mis- 
sion of being ‘‘fishers of ‘men’? (Matt. 4:18-22; 
Mark 1:16-20; Luke 5:10-11). To these others were 
added (Matt. 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5: 27-28), till 
the mystical number of twelve was complete. This band 
was of enough importance that three Evangelists, who 
passed by the account of so many miracles without giv- 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 121 


ing any particulars concerning them, and who even 
failed to report many of the Lord’s sermons, thought it 
a matter of sufficient importance to record exact lists of 
the names of those He selected (Matt. 10:1-4; Mark 
3:14-19; Luke 6:13-16). Something more than per- 
sonal interest or mere vanity led to the recording of 
these lists. Here we have the beginning of a congrega- 
tion of believers associated with the mission of the 
Lord; the nucleus from which the future Church was 
to grow. It was not an indefinite number of sympa- 
thetic souls, who at various times might have shown 
some spiritual affinity for the Kingdom of God, or who 
chanced to have a personal interest in Christ, but a 
definite number of men, whose names are carefully 
specified, and who were selected and called by Christ, as 
they are afterwards specifically reminded (John 15:16; 
ef. John 6:70; 13:18). Their vocation, like that of 
the Lord was a divine call and not the result of their 
own, purely human, decision. 


THE DISCIPLES ARE REQUIRED TO CONFESS CHRIST 


Obedience was required from these first disciples to 
make their vocation effective. They were included in 
this original company not by a mechanical compulsion 
or an automatic grace, but through a faith that obeyed 
the call. Their appointment was no opus operatum 
achieved by Christ’s will. He required their free sub- 
mission; a requirement that is extended to all who would 
become His disciples. Furthermore as the Lord came 
not to teach in secret but publicly (John 18: 20-21), so 
their allegiance could not be a mere secret sympathy, 
but required a public profession of faith that had to , 


122 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


be made, no matter what it cost. By their own confes- 
sion they were to be marked out and known to the world 
as His followers. Their very salvation depended on it. 
(Matt. 10:32-33, 38; 16:24; Mark 8:34, 38; Luke 
9:23, 26; 12: 8-9; 14: 26-27; 19: 38-40). It was a sine 
qua non of discipleship. Men might, for a time, be 
secret followers but they could not remain such if they 
were true followers, as in the cases of Nicodemus and 
Joseph of Arimathea. The Lord expressly said that 
failure to side with Him was to be against Him, that 
not only professed opponents but even the would-be 
neutrals were His enemies (Matt. 12:30; Luke 11: 23). 
Confession and discipleship was the transcendent moral 
duty, the great imperative that was to come before the 
claims of any human relationships (Matt. 8: 21-22; Luke 
9: 59-62), and neither worldly riches, comfort nor busi- 
ness should stand in its way (Matt. 19:21; Mark 10: 21; 
Luke 18: 22). 

But it is to be clearly noted that this does not mean 
a connection with some particular company of disciples, 
a select band or a particular form of organization. 
When the disciples complained that they saw a man who 
was not in immediate outward connection with them- 
selves, casting out devils in the name of Jesus, they 
were told, ‘‘He that is not against us is on our part’’ 
Mark 9:38-40; Luke 9:49-50). Words that are 
neither a contradiction of the other statement, ‘‘He that 
is not with me,’’ (Here it is ‘‘ws’’), ‘‘is against me,’’ nor 
do they constitute a paradox, but they deal with dif- 
ferent situations and dissimilar matters. They make 
very clear that discipleship does not depend on a merely 
mechanical bond established by some particular kind 
of external organization. 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 123 


THE MYSTICAL UNION 


The all important matter is the relation of the dis- 
ciple to the Lord. Where a sincere confession has 
sprung from a real faith there results a mystical union 
of the disciple with the Lord, and a spiritual relation- 
ship has been established that is greater than any 
earthly kinship (Matt. 12: 49-50; Mark 3: 31-35; Luke 
8:19-21), and that assures His spiritual presence 
even when physically absent (Matt. 18:20). The deeds 
done to His disciples touch Him (Matt. 25:40). St. 
John is particularly fond of emphasizing this conse- 
quence of discipleship. He records the Lord’s words 
that describe it as a mutual incorporation, like the as- 
similation of food by the body (6:56); he tells how it 
brings an assurance of protection with it (10: 27-28), 
and describes it as so vital and intimate that it imparts 
spiritual life as a vine brings life to its branches 
(15:1-6). It is a bond that is even similar to the divine 
relationship between the Father and the Son (17:21, 
26). 


IMPLIES SEPARATION FROM THE WORLD 


The great prayer of intercession makes it clear that 
this spiritual union with Christ will lead to a certain 
antagonism to the world. While the Kingdom of God 
and the State were separate domains and both ordained 
of God; while the civil duties owing earthly rulers were 
to be faithfully discharged, Cesar being rendered the 
things that were his, nevertheless the spirit of the world, 
the secular spirit and the spirit of Christ were at odds. 
Each was a fundamental negation of the other and a 
combination of the two, or a coalition of any sort was 
impossible. The desire of the world for pretentious 


124 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


signs and idle shows was not to be gratified (Matt. 
12: 38-42; 16:1-4; Mark 8:12). His place was not to 
interfere in secular disputes (Luke 12:14), neither 
was it His purpose to attain spiritual ends by forcible 
means or by coercing men through superatural powers, 
even though He was able to do so. Accordingly Peter 
is admonished to refrain from the use of physical means 
for His protection (Matt. 26:52-53; John 18:10-11). 
Standing before Pilate He reaffirmed His previous state- 
ment, that ‘‘The Kingdom of God cometh not with ob- 
servation’? (Luke 17:20), when He solemnly affirmed 
that because His Kingdom was not of this world His 
servants could not fight for it (John 18:36). He was 
indeed a king, but not as Pilate nor the multitude un- 
derstood it (John 6:15). His Kingdom, like His mis- 
sion was not political. Its destination and final realiza- 
tion was other worldly and could not be accomplished by 
force of arms or by a union with the state. While in 
the world, He was utterly independent of the world, 
with different ideals and aims from those of the world, 
and therefore bound to come into collision with the 
world. With His disciples it was to be the same. No- 
where does that come more clearly to light than in the 
great prayer of intercession (John 17: 9-16). 


EQUALITY BETWEEN THE DISCIPLES 


There was no hierarchy of discipleship. As in the 
case of Peter, a particular talent might bring leader- 
ship with it, but even that leadership lasted only so long 
as it was not spoiled by other faults of character. When 
the sons of Zebedee aspire to positions of special dis- 
tinction they are met by a sharp rebuke that applies 
equally to the envious indignation of the rest of the 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 125 


twelve (Matt. 20: 25-28; Mark 10: 42-45), and that is 
a renewal of a previous admonition, which had warned 
them that they were to seek to serve rather than to rule 
(Mark 9: 33-35). Elsewhere they were instructed not 
even to strive for empty titles, like the Pharisees, but 
to realize that they were all brethren and equals 
(Matt. 23:8-11). How hard it was to learn that lesson is 
seen in the story of the feet washing—and in all the sub- 
sequent history of Christianity. 


A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE DISCIPLES 


It is easy, however, to draw a false conclusion from 
that equality. There is also a clear distinction drawn 
between the leaders and those who are led, the teachers 
and the taught; a distinction that came naturally with 
the increasing activity of the disciples and which the 
Lord recognized. There was a personal equality be- 
tween them, but they were not all called to the same 
work. Some were to be commissioned for special ser- 
vice. The harvest of souls needed laborers to gather 
it (Matt. 9: 37-38; Luke 10:2; John 4:35-38). ‘The 
parables of the Great Supper (Luke 14: 16-24) and of 
the Marriage of the King’s Son (Matt. 22: 2-10) both 
picture the servants who are called to do a special work 
in God’s Kingdom; a work also implied in the command 
to ambitious disciples to become ministers. Out of the 
great number of hearers and the considerable number 
of disciples, who soon gathered around Him, the Lord 
chose certain ones to be leaders and commissioned them 
for certain purposes. The Apostles are informed that 
they are specially choosen (John 15:16). They are 
designated to be ‘‘fishers of men’? (Matt. 4:19; 
Luke 5:10). They are sent out on a mission, like His 


126 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


own, to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. 
10:1, 5-8; Mark 38:13-15; 6:7-13; Luke 92: 1-26). 
The same way the Seventy are sent on a special mis- 
sion in which there is a distiction between them and 
those to whom they go (Luke 10:1-2). In either case 
the missionaries are the specially appointed represen- 
tatives of Christ, who do not go of their own choice, 
nor clad simply with their own authority, but vested 
with something of the authority of the Lord, Who had 
delegated this work to them. The cities who refuse to 
hear them and the persons who will not receive them 
are both to be held accountable for their actions 
(Matt. 10: 14-15; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5; 10: 5-12), while 
the messengers and preachers themselves are promised 
a special grace for their tasks (Matt. 10:19-20; Mark 
13:11; Luke 12: 11-12). 

Not every one was at liberty to engage in such a mis- 
sion. Mere willingness or a feeling of inner desire did 
not necessarily mean the acceptance of a volunteer. 
Like the prophets of old, the Lord’s messengers were 
not to run unless they were sent. He appointed those 
whom He desired to send and chose whom He wished to 
have in His special company. When a grateful man, 
whom He has helped seeks to join that number, while 
he is evidently accepted as a disciple in the wider sense, 
and is to bear his private witness to what has been done 
for him, he is nevertheless refused a place among those 
selected for the more special and public work of the 
Kingdom (Mark 5:18-20; Luke 8: 38-39). 


THE COMMON DUTY OF ALL DISCIPLES TO KEEP THE TRUTH 


Each individual had to guard against the danger of a 
false profession, that presented the appearance of a 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 127 


real faith, without its inner reality, and all such sim- 
ulated discipleship could only end in destruction 
(Matt. 7: 21-23). So the body of disciples, as a whole, 
would be threatened with a similar danger through the 
coming of false prophets, who might even perform lying 
wonders but who, because of their destruction of the 
truth, would involve themselves and their followers in 
utter ruin. False teaching, parading as Christ’s teach- 
ing, is the great danger against which the body of dis- 
ciples must guard (Matt. 7: 15-23; 24: 4-5, 23-24; Mark 
13: 5-6, 21-22; Luke 21: 8). 


II. THE FUTURE EXTENSION AND CONTINUATION OF THE 
MISSION OF CHRIST 


The Catholicity and Perpetuity of Christ’s Mission 


Was the mission of Christ, in which they shared, only 
for Israel and the time of our Lord’s earthly life? 
In the first place they had been expressly sent to Israel 
alone, just as the Lord Himself had limited His minis- 
trations almost wholly to His own people. But there 
are intimations that the mission of Christ had a wider 
scope. He could heal a Roman centurion’s servant and 
the daughter of a Canaanite. He warned proud and 
exclusive Jews that when those who were first bidden 
refused to come to the great supper others would take 
their place (Luke 14:16-24), and in the parable of 
the marriage of the king’s son a similar warning is 
repeated (Matt. 22:2-10). In the end many of them 
would be thrust out while the scattered Gentiles would 
take their place (Matt. 8:11-12; Luke 13: 28-29). 
Indeed it is expressly stated that the Kingdom of God 
is to be taken from them and given to a nation bringing 
forth the fruits thereof (Matt. 21:43). The final 


128 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


Judgment itself would not take place till the Gospel was 
first ‘‘published among all nations’’ (Mark 13:10; 
Matt. 24:14). Privately similar assurances were given 
the disciples as when they are told that the anointing 
which took place in Simon’s house is to be told to the 
whole world, because it is part of a Gospel that is to be 
universally preached (Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9), and 
that repentance and forgiveness was to be preached 
among all nations (Luke 24: 47). 

But when was this to take place? Not during the 
Lord’s earthly life. His work of redemption has to be 
completed and His rejection by the chosen people had 
to be final before it took place. From that time on till 
His final return in glory His mission was to reach out 
to the whole world. There is no need of citing par- 
ticular passages from the Gospels. The entire apoc- 
alyptic element of His teaching points onward to that 
fact. The work of redemption was finished by Himself 
as that part of His mission could only be accomplished 
by Himself, but the actual bringing of that redemption 
to the world, the future extension of His mission was 
left to disciples commissioned for that task. As the 
minstrants of His grace He identifies the mission of 
His disciples with His own. In the future they were to 
bear witness concerning Him (John 15:27; Luke 
24:48). While these two statements refer primarily to 
the first generation of Christians the whole apocalyptic 
teaching of the Gospels demands their extension to 
future generations. His authority was their authority 
(Luke 10:16), not only for that special mission but in 
an unbounded extension through time and place (Matt. 
10:40; Mark 9:37; John 13: 20; 17:18). 

How expressly the Lord taught His disciples con- 
cerning the continuation of His mission after His de- 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 129 


parture, and how they were to be given a special grace 
for that work, through the coming of the Holy Ghost 
and the wider revelation His coming would bring, be- 
comes particularly clear in the last Gospel, where the 
temporal side of our Lord’s mission fades more and 
more out of sight, even in the accounts of the most in- 
timate personal scenes, and {where the timeless and 
universal elements of the mission become more and more 
evident. The human circumstances become less import- 
ant as the divine power that animates the disciples 
comes into the foreground. 

Here, from a different viewpoint than the apocalyptic 
one, we hear of the continuation of the Lord’s mission 
after His departure. There is a prediction that the 
attractive power of the Cross will reach out to all the 
world after His death (John 12:32), not because some 
mysterious force has been let loose but through their 
testimony (John 15:27). When the final intercession 
is made for them it includes a prayer for their support 
in carrying out their mission, and for those who shall 
believe through their word (John 17:18, 20), while the 
special direction of the Risen Lord to the first confessor 
is to carry on the work which has been begun—to feed 
the sheep (John 21: 15-19). 

This is a task too great for unaided humanity, so the 
Holy Ghost shall be their perpetual guide, comfort and 
strength. He shall provide them with the necessary 
ability (John 14:16-18, 26). Their witness will be 
made possible through the inner witness of the Holy 
Ghost (John 15: 26-27). His assistance is even more 
necessary to them than the continued presence of Christ 
(John 16:7) and the illumination He will afford is to be 
complete and perfect as far as their records demand 
and God’s eternal purpose decrees (John 16: 13-15). 


130 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


Ill. THE DEFINITE INSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH FOR THE 
PURPOSE OF CARRYING ON CHRIST’S MISSION 


Up to this point we have refrained from considering 
those statements of our Lord that deal directly with 
the Church. Our purpose was to show how the Church 
is a necessary and inevitable outgrowth of the Mission 
of Christ; that it was implied in all His earthly teach- 
ing and activity, and that it is the necessary factor for 
the completion of His mission on earth. If this be cor- 
rect we would, of course, expect to find an unqualified 
declaration concerning the institution of the Church. 
We do not have to look far to find it. 


THE ACTUAL INSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH 


Faith in the one Lord, Who alone had the words of 
eternal life, had brought the Apostles together and 
united them into one company (John 6: 68-69). Was 
that faith to be the bond of a permanent society of 
believers; an Ecclesia? When Peter, the spokesman, 
makes his great confession at Cesarea Philippi, he 
becomes the rock on which the Lord declares the future 
Church is to be founded, since that Church was to be 
the gathering together of those who would profess this 
same confession. Not the man Peter, but the confessor, 
is the rock, for it cannot escape the attention of any 
thoughtful reader that almost immediately the man 
suffers the most stinging rebuke, when he is called Satan 
because of his ill chosen advice. And yet, as confessing 
men and not abstract theological propositions constitute 
the Church, there is a sense in which it is indeed founded 
on the first confessor, because he by his confession be- 
comes the spiritual father of a regenerated race; the 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 1381 


Seth of that new race of which Christ was the second 
Adam. 

Without losing ourselves in the question of the 
primacy of Peter, we must realize that the Lord here 
promises the institution of a Church of His followers 
against which no powers of evil can ever prevail. Its 
existence is assured and it is no mere ‘‘historical 
society’’ for the perpetuation of a certain tradition, but 
a society of believers, who will be hated and assailed 
by the powers of darkness as was the Lord, which is 
endowed with divine protection and which is to possess 
all that it was the Lord’s mission to bring to men—the 
actual and real forgiveness of sins with the life and 
salvation that comes through that forgiveness. The 
atonement that the Lord brought to the world, the 
Church is to bring it in the future. 


THE POWER OF THE KEYS GIVEN THE WHOLE CHURCH 


How little basis there is for the claim of an individual 
primacy of Peter is apparent further on in the same 
Gospel of Matthew. There the power of binding 
and loosing is designated as a possession of the entire 
Church; given to the whole band of disciples, not simply 
to Peter (Matt. 18:17-18). Here the reason for that 
power is more fully explained. When those who are 
united by a common faith, that has united them with a 
common Lord, are gathered together, even though they 
be but two or three in number, they are assured of His 
presence among them with all the plenitude of His 
power (Matt. 18:19-20). Only it must be noted that 
there is something more here promised than is given 
to the individual in his mystical union with the Lord. 
This is a promise to the Church, not to specific indivi- 


132 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


duals or to single believers as separated from the rest. 

Furthermore it should be clearly noted that this is a 
spiritual and not a temporal power. It might involve 
discipline as far as the Church itself was concerned, but 
had nothing to do with the penalties of earthly law, the 
latter idea being expressly repudiated by the Lord later 
on (John 18:36). But one other fact is also very clear; 
that the Church which ean be gathered in particular 
places and is to consider cases of disagreement between 
its individual members is both a visible and audible 
society, that can speak its decisions and that it is not 
a hidden coetus praedestinatorum. That it may include 
those who are not really a part of it is another matter 
that we must consider a little later. 

For a third time the power of the keys is promised 
to the Church. This time it is the commission of the 
risen Lord (John 20: 21-23), who again bestows the 
power of absolution on the Church. While there were 
others present besides the Eleven (Luke 24:33), and 
so the commission may be considered as addressed to 
the whole assembly, it is difficult not to see in it a dou- 
ble significance and to realize that it was intended par- 
ticularly for the Apostles. Even though we would re- 
gard it as intended for all, what applies to the whole 
Church here applies particularly to its office bearers, 
its teachers and leaders, who are specially mentioned; 
so that we are surely doing no violence to the record if 
we see in it a particular commission to the ministry. 


THE MEANS OF GRACE 


In the giving of the power of the keys had been im- 
plied the certainty of God’s promises and the efficacy 
of the ministration of His Word by men. Likewise the 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 133 


disciples were to be witnesses to the truth and to con- 
tinue the mission of Christ through the divine power 
of His Gospel (John 15:27), whose words were spirit 
and life (John 6:63, 68). This work of preaching a 
Gospel of forgiveness, which manifestly is intended to 
be an effectual forgiveness, is again repeated by the 
risen Lord (Luke 24: 46-48). 

To this Word the Lord adds another means of convey- 
ing His grace. Material elements are to come into play 
in connection with His promises and the Church is to 
continue His mission just as He had conducted it, by 
word and by touch. By the use of material elements 
men were to be assured of the reality of His grace. 
First in the Holy Supper a visible Sacrament had been 
provided which was to be a perpetual memorial of 
Christ, a continued means of actual participation in His 
presence, a channel of incorporation into Him, a vehicle 
for conveying the grace and forgiveness of His sac- 
rifice to all believers, and that was so real that it brought 
' His body and blood even to the unbelievers. An out- 
ward rite was to assure the actual gift of Himself, and 
this was to be repeated till He should return in glory, 
another pledge of the perpetuity of the Church. (Matt. 
26: 26-29; Mark 14: 22-25; Luke 22: 19-20). 

The final climax of the Lord’s earthly ministry and 
His final injunction to His Apostles is a solemn delega- 
tion of His Mission to the Church, together with the in- 
stitution of that second Sacrament, that is directly to 
bestow the grace of regeneration to mankind (Matt. 28: 
19-20; [Mark 16:15-18] ). So great is this work that 
lies before them that they were to receive divine support 
and they were not to begin it at once. They were re- 
minded of the previous promises of the outpouring of 
the Holy Ghost and were reminded that they must await 


134 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


this final act of Gods providential plan before the work 
of the Church can become fully effective (Luke 24: 49; 
Acts 1: 4-8). 


CERTAIN OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NATURE OF THE 
CHURCH TAUGHT BY CHRIST 


Before we take up this historic event, however, we 
must look for a moment at some characteristics of the 
Church that are mentioned more or less incidentially in 
the Lord’s teaching or are found in some of the parables. 


A SPIRITUAL ORGANISM 


The Lord expressly repudiated the idea that He was 
to establish a political organization in the world. Not 
only did He refuse to act as a judge between contend- 
ing litigants (Luke 12: 13-14), and repelled the idea of 
an earthly kingship for Himself (John 6:15), but He 
expressly declared before Pilate that His kingdom was 
not of this world and that His servants would not fight 
for it (John 18:36), as, just before, He had warned 
Peter that His cause was not to be defended by the 
sword (Matt. 26:52-53; Luke 22:50-51; John 18: 
11-12). 

The same fact had been unmistakably asserted in a 
previous declaration, when, in reply to the question of 
the Pharisees concerning the coming of the Kingdom, 
He stated that it would not come with outward show but 
that it was within (or among) them (Luke 17: 20-21). 
Likewise the parables represent it as a seed growing 
secretly (Mark 4: 26-29); a leaven that works unper- 
ceived (Matt. 13:33; Luke 13: 20-21; a mustard seed, 
so insignificant that it passes unnoticed (Matt. 13: 
31-32; Mark 4: 31-32; Luke 13:18-19). Yet, with all 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 185 


this, it is always represented as becoming visible. The 
Lord has His disciples; the Kingdom gives evidence of 
its presence both within and among men; the seed 
brings forth its harvest; the leaven shows that it has 
permeated the whole lump, and the mustard seed 
develops into the largest of the herbs. 


AN ORGANISM OF MIXED KIND 


The Kingdom as men see it, in its earthly manifesta- 
tion is not pure. Here good and evil, sincere men and 
hypocrites, tares and wheat are found more or less com- 
mingled (Matt. 13: 24-30, 36-43), good and bad are 
gathered in together (Matt. 13: 47-49), sheep and goats 
are in the same company, often being classed as of one 
kind, till a future and final judgment shall separate 
them (Matt. 25:31-45). Even the chief laborers, the 
teachers, may belong to the impure elements that are 
finally to be cast out (Matt. 21: 33-45; Mark 12:1-11; 
Luke 20: 9-18). Nothing more strikingly illustrates this 
fact than the career of Judas among the Twelve. Not 
until the time has come for his judgment is he shut out 
from the grace shared by the rest. To the very end, 
even to the reception of the Holy Supper, he has an 
equal participation in God’s grace and to the whole 
world he appears just like the others, even though the 
Lord was long before aware of his true character 
(John 6:70). 


AN ORGANISM POSSESSING A DIVINE LIFE 


The seed finds good soil and grows (Matt. 13:8; 
Mark 4:8; Luke 8: 8), the leaven imparts its life to the 
whole lump (Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:21), and the feast 
is furnished with guests (Matt. 22:10; Luke 13:21). 


136 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


In spite of all human admixture and impurity the divine 
forces of grace are effective. Hven though teachers 
should disgrace their doctrine by their lives, the truths 
they teach still remain true and carry with them God’s 
sanction and authority, for what God offers or com- 
mands is not vitiated by the faults of those who min- 
ister it (Matt. 23: 2-3). 


Il. Tue Actua Extension oF THE Mission oF CHRIST TO 
THE CHURCH 


J. AS RELATED IN THE BOOK OF ACTS 


The Significance of Pentecost 


During the ten days following the Ascension it must 
almost have seemed as though the high hopes of Easter 
had all come to an end. The Lord’s work of redemption 
was completed, the band of disciples had been fully in- 
structed and commissioned, yet the Church stood still; 
it gained no converts, did no missionary work and only 
waited. True, the Lord’s command was to await the 
coming of the Comforter, but it is evident that not only 
obedience but also an inner necessity caused the dis- 
ciples to mark time. Something essential for their 
carrying on of the mission of Christ was still lacking. 
Only as the mission of Christ, which He had personally 
completed by the objective redemption, becomes the 
mission of the Comforter can it become the mission of 
the Church, for there cannot be a Church without the 
presence of the Holy Ghost. This final step in the 
progressive revelation of God to the world and the min- 
istration of His redeeming love took place in an historic 
act, definitely marked as to the time and place of its 
occurance. There was a special manifestation, seen and 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST = 137 


heard by witnesses, that proved that it had taken place. 
The outward signs of Pentecost together with the inner 
power and grace that resulted in the conversion of the 
five thousand presented the historic evidence of the 
coming of a Divine Presence, apart from the evidence of 
the Presence manifested in all the subsequent life of 
the Church. As angelic songs and a visible Babe, lying 
in the arms of Mary, were evidence of the Incarnation 
and proof that the Word was made flesh, so here, by 
external signs and by the inner moving of men’s hearts 
it was shown that the Spirit of the Lord had been given 
to the Church. 

Men have frequently failed to grasp the full sig- 
nificance of this event in the economy of the Kingdom 
of God. The history of that Kingdom is a history of 
revelation, and revelation is a drawing near of God to 
men. First, as was pointed out before, God revealed 
Himself to men, then, in the Incarnation began the 
revelation of Himself among men, and finally, as He 
works a personal regeneration of men’s lives, He reveals 
Himself in men. But all this is a cumulative revelation. 
The first step is not displaced by the second, which is 
its completing addition, but the two remain as a unit, 
which finds it final consummation in the third step. 
When God’s grace works in men, which of necessity 
means a work by men, then a living Church comes into 
actual being, sustained and sanctioned by a Divine 
Power in its work of carrying on the redemptive mis- 
sion of Christ. As the Lord’s work was a work of 
holiness so the Church is to make men holy; a purpose 
that can only be accomplished by the presence of the 
Spirit of Holiness. The realization of that fact is 
clearly indicated not only by the historic events and by 
clear statements of the Apostles but also by their sud- 


138 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


den and constant use of the terms the Church and the 
Holy Ghost.’ Henceforth the two factors that are rec- 
ognized as realizing the Kingdom of God on earth are 
the Church and the Holy Ghost, but not as separate from 
each other. They belong together and are united by 
inextricable ties in the accomplishment of that purpose. 
The Holy Ghost chooses to work through the Church 
and the Church cannot work without the Holy Ghost. 


THE DEPENDENCE OF THE CHURCH ON THE HOLY GHOST 


From the very beginning the Apostles and the other 
believers associated with them had felt their depend- 
ence on divine guidance and assistance, not only as in- 
dividuals but also as a company of the disciples of 
Christ. Besides the references to the Holy Ghost and 
His activity we find a tacit confession of their need in 
the prayers and supplications that were offered in com- 
mon by the disciples. Before the Day of Pentecost 
(Acts 1:14); after the outpouring of the Holy Ghost 
(2:42); at a crisis like the imprisonment of Peter 
(12:5, 12), they are found praying for succor and guid- 
ance from above. There is no need for multiplying 
references as it is apparent to even the most cursory 
reader of the New Testament that the entire apostolic 
period of Christianity is punctuated by prayer. This 
heavenly aid is sought so instinctively because it is 
recognized as a present reality, as well as an unmistak- 
able need. Peter not only regards the Holy Ghost as 
the giver of past revelation (1:16) but believes that 
the promises of His outpouring made in the past (2. 





*In the Book of Acts alone there are 51 unmistakable references 
to the Holy Ghost as against 44 such direct references in all four 
Gospels. The increased use of the word éxxdyoia has already 
been noted. 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST = 139 


17-18) are being realized in his own day (2:33), while 
Paul knows that even his missionary plans are reg- 
ulated by a divine guidance of the Spirit (16:6). 


THE CATHOLIC MISSION OF THE CHURCH 


It was the consciousness of the actual presence of 
God’s Spirit that impelled the disciples to undertake 
the task that had been assigned them—to carry out the 
redemptive mission of Christ to the whole world. This 
was the mission before them at the time the book of 
Acts begins its story (1:5-8), and the realization of this 
coming task moves Peter to propose the appointment 
of another Apostle in the place of Judas, that he may 
help in carrying on the witness to the resurrection of 
Christ. Then comes Pentecost and puts the whole body 
of believers into motion; a static group of disciples be- 
comes a missionary Church. The currents that had 
brought men to Jerusalem for Pentecost were from all 
corners of the world and the returning tide would bear 
back with it messengers of the Gospel to every quarter. 
Their message would be no longer solely for the Jews 
but for all men, as Peter expressly told them that it 
would also apply to those afar off (2:39). Philip, Peter 
and John preach in Samaria and Philip baptizes an 
Ethiopian (Ch. 8). Peter ventures at last to baptize a 
Roman and the brethren approve his action (Ch. 10-11). 
Paul turns to the Gentiles (13: 42-48), and sets out on 
his missionary journeys. But what need of citing spe- 
cial instances when the whole book is an account of 
the extension of the Gospel to the whole world, and a 
proof of the fact that the Church is not limited to one 
place or one nation. A real catholicity preaches the 
universal Gospel, in the universal Church, to all man- 
kind. 


140 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


THE CHURCH ENDOWED WITH DIVINE POWERS 


The Book of Acts is a miracle Book. Its pages are 
crowded with accounts of miracles and with references 
to signs and wonders, not only of grace but also of phy- 
sical power, that gave evidence to the world of the pres- 
ence of a divine Power (2:43; 3:6-8; 4:30-31; 5:12, 
16; 6:8; 8:6-7, 15-17; 9:40; 12: 7-10; 14:3, 10; 15:12; 
16:18; 19:6, 11; 20: 10-12; 28:5, 8). But these special 
manifestations are always subordinated to the greatest 
consideration of all, which ever remains the impartation 
of the divine life of the Gospel, the giving of the Spirit 
of God through the means by which He brings the sal- 
vation of Christ to the individual. Miracles, as such, 
are only side issues compared with the Word and Sac- 
raments. Their chief value consists in giving to the 
outside world an evidence of the presence of the Divine 
Life in the Church. The great thing was not such ex- 
ternal evidence but the impartation of that divine life 
to the individual believer.’ 


*The miraculous element in Acts is always kept in proper sub- 
ordination even when it is so prominent. There is never the undue 
exaltation of physical miracles found in Rome and many modern 
sects. They are only like the sonorous bells of a church tower, call- 
ing men to the enjoyment of the grace found within the sanctuary. 
When men have once entered the sanctuary it is no longer necessary 
for the clangor of the bells to call them. That the spiritual mir- 
acles of regeneration are still accompanied by signs and wonders 
no one will dispute. A striking example of the modern appreciation 
of that fact is given in the life of von Bodelschwingh as told by his 
son: “The old saying mpakic éribacig ewpiac (the deed gives 
access to certainty) here repeatedly became a true saying. In the 
active help he was able to give more than one candidate forgot his 
subtile intellectual broodings. In the common life he shared with 
many Brothers and Sisters of the Deacon’s and Deaconess’ Homes 
he observed that Jesus Christ was the great power of the world, 
from Whom flow energies and transformations that could not be 
accomplished by any human might, and as he saw the childlike faith 
of a half-witted boy of Zoar or of an epileptic farmer of Hebron he 
experienced something that surpassed all the university period had 
offered.” Friederich von Bodelschwingh, Leben und Lebenswerk 
dargestellt von seinem Sohne, Berlin, 1928, p. 295. 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 141 


THE CHURCH AN INSTITUTION OF SALVATION 


In the Church are the channels through which God’s 
grace and power are communicated to the individual, 
and in the account of the origins of the Church, found 
in Acts, the preaching of the Word and Baptism are 
continually noted as the outstanding factors for the im- 
partation of eternal life to those who believed. If this 
is a miracle book it is far more a preaching book. Ser- 
mon after sermon is recorded together with the results 
it produced in the hearers. Everywhere the success at- 
tending the preaching of the Word shows what power 
there is in the ‘‘word of his grace’’ (20:32). But there 
is also a special grace given in baptism. Peter de- 
mands that his hearers be baptized for the remission of 
sins (2:38); Paul needs baptism as well as the heavenly 
vision (9:18); those who have been granted a special 
gift of the Holy Ghost through Peter’s preaching still 
require it (10: 44-48) ; faith leads Lydia to it (16: 14-15), 
likewise the jailor at Philippi (16: 32-33), and the con- 
verts at Corinth (19:5). 

Because of the character of Acts and its manifest in- 
tention to be primarily an account of the missionary 
operations of the Church the Holy Supper is mentioned 
only casually, but it is there, and the whole picture of 
the Church that is given us is that of an institution of 
salvation, not a mere association of believers, and one 
moreover that possesses a divine grace, ministered to 
men through fixed and appointed channels, which 
actually convey the grace they offer. The Church is de- 
scribed as a real and effective continuation of the re- 
demptive mission of Christ. 

This grace is ministered by the Church, it is found in 
the Church and of necessity the believers receiving it 


142 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


belong to the Church. In a startling statement Luke 
makes that fact very clear: ‘‘The Lord added to the 
Church daily such as should be saved’’ (2:47). It was 
because Christ was in His Church, and outside Him 
there is no salvation (3: 23; 4:12; 13:48). As surely as 
the New Testament knows no salvation outside of Christ, 
so surely it never hints at the thought of a salvation 
apart from Christ’s Church. As the Lord did not rec- 
ognize disciples who refused to confess Him, so the 
Apostles do not even dream of salvation apart from the 
channels of grace flowing through the Church. As we 
shall presently see, this did not mean some particular 
form of organization or some special kind of polity, but 
it did mean the Church, which is the congregation of 
saints, and which ministers the means of grace. That 
very expression, ‘‘Added to the Church daily such as 
should be saved’’ and the whole missionary zeal mani- 
fested by the Apostles and their converts shows that 
back of all their activity lay the thought, whether clearly 
grasped or only present as an undeveloped feeling, 
“‘Hatra ecclesiam nulla salus.’’ 


THE CHURCH VISIBLE 


The number of the elect is indeed invisible to human 
eyes and mortal vision cannot see the Holy Ghost, but 
as the invisible grace of Word and Sacraments was 
manifested by means that were audible and tangible, so 
the Church, though invisible in its essence, was never- 
theless a perceptible society that showed itself to the 
world by its confession, its words and its deeds, a mem- 
bership that could even, on occasion, be numbered 
(2: 41-42; 4:4; 5:11; 5:14; 6:7; 9:31; 11:21, 26; 12: 
1; 13:1). Not one of these passages would have any 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 1438 


meaning if the Church were truly and completely in- 
visible. They imply that the Church is perceptible by 
men in the world. 


ENTRANCE INTO THE CHURCH CONDITIONAL ON CERTAIN 
REQUIREMENTS 


As the Lord had required of those whom He called 
faith in Himself, the confession of His name, and a cer- 
tain separation from the world, that all was followed 
by a certain mystical union with Himself, we find re- 
pentance, faith and baptism the required conditions of 
participation in salvation and of union with the Church. 
(2:38; 3:19; 8: 36-37; 16:31; 18:8; 19:18). Here we 
see the call through the Word and the regenerating 
grace of Holy Baptism. In one form or another the 
objective, visible means of grace have to be first opera- 
tive. Then the acceptance of that grace by the repent- 
ant and believing hearer, who attests his conversion by 
his professions and actions, which in the case of those 
called through the preaching of the Gospel means also 
the submission to baptism before they are fully a part 
of the Church of Christ. Even as extraordinary a case 
as the conversion of Paul is no exception to God’s reg- 
ular order. Though it be a voice from heaven and God 
Himself Who proclaims the great fact of the Gospel to 
him, and though the manner of its preaching be so 
unusual it does not relieve him from the necessity of 
receiving the grace of baptism. Indeed he is expressly 
instructed to receive its grace and the visible evidence 
of his call into God’s Kingdom from the hands of a 
humble member of the Church (9:17-18). The disciples 
at Jerusalem might naturally be suspicious of him, but 
the evidence of his reception into the Church and his 


144 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


bold confession of Christ was sufficient for them and 
they received him as a brother (9: 26-28). At a later 
date Paul himself insists on similar conditions of admis- 
sion to the Church (22:16). 


THE CHURCH HAS AUTHORITATIVELY APPOINTED TEACHERS 


As soon as the company of believers begins to appear 
in the narrative as a clearly articulated organization it 
has its teachers and leaders, who speak with authority. 
At first we hear simply of the Apostles, who look on 
their mission chiefly as that of being witnesses to the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ, so that Matthias must be 
elected to take the vacant place of Judas (1: 22; 2:32; 
3:15), but that idea quickly expands into the wider con- 
ception of a preaching of the Gospel, that is not only 
a witnessing of the historic fact of the Resurrection but 
also includes the whole counsel of God. This duty of 
witnessing lies upon them as the result of an inner 
necessity as well as through an external command 
(4:20; 5:31. This passage is particularly interesting 
as it binds together their preaching with ,the inner 
testimony of the Holy Ghost in the heart of the believer. 
5: 20-25, 32, 41-42; 10:39). Moved by a similar im- 
pulse Paul begins to preach immediately after his en- 
trance into the Church through baptism (9:20) and his 
whole career as a missionary is one grand witnessing 
to the Gospel of Christ (14:7; 15:35; 17:3; 20:24), 
while ‘the very last words of the book picture him as 
engaged in this activity (28:31). 

This witnessing was not limited to the Apostles. Not 
only in private but even in public the deacons and other 
believers preached Christ (8:4; 11: 19-21; 15:35). So 
in other matters pertaining to the welfare of the Church 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 145 


there was a general participation of all the disciples. 
When Matthias was chosen the whole congregation took 
part in the transaction (1:15, 23). The deacons were 
elected by a general gathering of believers (6: 2-6). 
Peter’s course in going to Cornelius was approved by 
the whole assembly (11:1-18), while, most significant of 
all, the decree of the first council in Jerusalem was made 
not only by Apostles and Elders but ‘‘with the whole 
church’? (15: 22-29). So the work of the Church per- 
tained to all believers, but not in the same way to all. 
While there is no hint anywhere of a sacerdotal order 
the same distinction between teachers and taught, that 
was recognized by our Lord, is evident, and the office 
of the ministry, as He instituted it, comes more and 
more clearly into view. 

Strange indeed is the attempt to deduce from the 
silence of Acts concerning the divine institution of the 
ministry the conclusion that it was only developed nat- 
urally from local circumstances and was merely a 
gradual result of local necessities. Hven Kostlin at- 
tempts to do so. By the same kind of reasoning the 
Lord’s Supper about which almost nothing is said, and 
the Sacrament of Baptism, which is mentioned so often 
but without reference to its divine institution, might 
both be regarded as developments from former customs 
or as devices introduced, under apostolic supervision, to 
meet special needs. That is misreading facts in the 
interest of theories. The natural conclusion is the very 
opposite. The writer of the Acts is careful to record 
what is new in the experience of the disciples. The out- 
pouring and continued activity of the Holy Ghost, both 
in miracles and in men’s hearts, the institution and or- 





*Julius Kostlin, Das Wesen der Kirche, etc. 2d ed. 1872, pp. 
77-78, 106. 


146 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


ganization of the diaconate, the turning of the Apostles 
to the Gentiles, and the official recognition of the pass- 
ing away of the obligations of the Mosaic Law are all 
related, while those things already clearly commanded 
by the Lord or learned directly from Him by the 
Apostles, during the time of His earthly ministry, are 
all taken as a matter of course; they appear as estab- 
lished facts. The office of the ministry is one of these. 
All attempts to read out of the New Testament the 
divine institution of an office of the Ministry are just 
as forced and artificial as the attempts to read into it 
the beginnings of a sacerdotal system, or to find there 
the foundations of a priestly hierarchy. 

The conception of a special office of the ministry is 
taken for granted as an historic fact in the Book of 
Acts. The Twelve desired the creation of a diaconate 
that they might give themselves wholly to their peculiar 
work, ‘‘to prayer and to the ministry of the word”’’ 
(6: 2-4). The elders appear as the official heads of the 
congregation at Jerusalem to whom Barnabas and Paul 
are sent (11:30). In Antioch five men are specially 
mentioned as prophets and teachers, who ministered to 
the Lord (13:1). The Apostles and elders at Jeru- 
salem were distinguished from the rest of the Church 
15:4), and the same office is found elsewhere, for 
Paul on his final journey to Jerusalem calls the elders 
of the Church at Ephesus to meet him at Miletus 
(20:17). 

Other offices might be instituted to meet special needs, 
as in the case of the diaconate, but there the incumbents 
are not represented as doing the regular work of the 
ministry. Stephen did great wonders and testified to 
his faith (ch. 7), but he did not act in the pastoral ca- 
pacity of the Apostles and elders. Philip preached as 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 147 


a missionary, baptized and evangelized, as did other pri- 
vate Christians on occasion (8:5-40), but he does not 
appear as the settled pastor of a regular congregation. 
His work is an extraordinary one. 

That the ministry is the highest office in the Church 
is also evidently taken for granted, because while the 
ten deacons were elected by the whole multitude, they 
were presented to the Apostles for their approval and 
the latter confirmed the election by the laying on of their 
hands (6:5-6). Paul and Barnabas were officially set 
apart for their missionary work by the prophets and 
teachers of Antioch (13:2-3), while on ‘their travels 
through Derbe, Lystra and Iconium, Paul and Barnabas 
by their own authority appointed the elders in every 
church (14:23). In this case the appointment of the 
elders is an outstanding fact. Whether they were first 
chosen by the congregations is a question passed over 
in silence but that they were appointed by the visiting 
ministry, the missionaries, is expressly recorded. More 
than once those in the office of the ministry showed their 
consciousness of a divine calling and of an authority 
that imposed on them the necessity of challenging any 
authority that might conflict with it. Peter and John 
defied those who attempted to silence them and so would 
have interfered with their commission to preach the 
Gospel (4:18-20), and a second time Peter and the 
Apostles repeated the defiance (5:29). In the council 
at Jerusalem all alike take part in the decision, but the 
Apostles and elders are the leaders of the deliberations, 
the spokesmen and those who presided (ch. 15), while 
later on a practical application of its decisions is made 
by James and the elders (21:18-25). Most clear of all 
is the statement made by Paul to the elders at 
Ephesus that they are overseers, who are to feed the 


148 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


Church and that they have been appointed over the flock 
by the Holy Ghost (20: 28). 


THE CHURCH POSESSES A REAL UNITY OF FAITH 


About the unity of the Church as portrayed in Acts 
there is no question. In its first stages it even had a 
common possession of earthly goods. That proved to 
be only a short lived experiment, but it served well its 
purpose of showing that real unity was grounded on a 
spiritual bond and that it was grounded on a deeper 
principle than any external agreements. The great bond 
of union in the Church was the unity of faith. Even that 
first experiment in common possession sprang from a 
desire to give complete expression to the inner unity 
of all believers (2:42-46; 4:32-35). It caused those 
who were at Antioch to feel that they were one with 
those in Jerusalem and in duty bound to assist them in 
time of need (11: 29-30). Nowhere, however, is there 
any hint that this unity, which caused them constantly 
to refer to each other as brethren and made them con- 
sult with each other on the vital issues that involved the 
interests of all, rested on their connection with the 
Apostles, let alone their relation to Peter. It is their 
common faith in Christ, ‘their relation to Him that 
makes them one. In the warning against false teachers 
and false doctrine, given by St. Paul to the elders at 
Hphesus (20: 29-30), which is a distinct repetition of 
the Lord’s warning against false prophets, it is stated 
that these teachers would draw men away by their per- 
verse teachings. False doctrine would disturb the unity 
of the Church because it would cloud the clearness of 
their faith and so weaken, if not perhaps destroy, their 
relation to Christ. In its common faith and its catholic 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 149 


confession of Christ the Church was one because thus 
every part of the Church was united by the same bond 
to the One Lord, the one great Shepherd of the sheep. 


BUT IN THE ONE CHURCH THERE IS STILL AN ADMIXTURE 
OF EVIL 


All too soon the significance of the Lord’s parables 
of the tares and the wheat, etc., became evident. The 
outward connection with the Church did not guarantee 
the reality of the individual’s conversion nor the sin- 
cerity of his faith. Men might be in the Church but not 
of the Church. Not only did human frailty manifest 
itself in those who were real disciples (6:1; 15: 1-2, 
37-40), but some who appeared to be especially enthu- 
siastic disciples turned out to be frauds who had no 
real part in the Church of which they were outwardly 
recognized as members. The tragic story of Ananias 
and Sapphira (5:1-10) is a continual reminder of the 
certain presence of dross among the gold. It almost 
seems as though special insight into their hearts had 
been given to Peter for the express purpose of warning 
all future generations that no merely external bond 
could make real Christians out of men. Though salva- 
tion was to be found only in the Church, simply to have 
an external connection with that Church did not bring 
salvation, nor was it any assurance of salvation by it- 
self, either to the individual or to the world. 


II. THE APOSTOLIC COMMENTS AND EXPLANATIONS CONCERN- 
ING THE EXTENSION OF THE MISSION OF CHRIST TO 
THE CHURCH FOUND IN THE REMAINDER 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


The apostolic writings do not add anything additional 
to the fundamental accounts of the Church contained in 


150 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


the Gospels and Acts, but they furnish the comments 
and explanations and practical directions concerning 
what is an accomplished fact. Now while they add 
nothing essentially new they certainly clarify and es- 
tablish all that has gone before. Here we see how the 
nature of the Church is disclosed more fully as a result 
of its conflict with the world and the powers of darkness. 


THE CHURCH IS HOLY 


Here we read about a divine institution whose mem- 
bers are called to holiness; the saints, or those called 
to be saints is the startling phrase we find used (Rom. 
1s (183273115 225-260012 16-21 bel Cors la Ocalan: 
14333) 162d 15s alte Cor. bali Sia OD ore ee pie 
Lele Lise 19 ee 8 inl Bs) Aral ee ech bon bemekeas 
Ditbs43 21-23) Cold: 2514 12, 263s le Vhess iota 
II Thess 1:10; Philemon 5, 7; Heb. 3:1; 6:10; 13:24; 
I Peter 1:15-16). These even though not yet perfect 
are called to separate themselves from the evil in the 
world (II Cor. 6:14-17; Eph. 4:17-24; 5: 25-32; Col. 
3:2-11; II Tim. 2:19). In fact every ethical admonition 
found in the Epistles is a statement of the ideal holiness 
of the Church. But this holiness evidently does not lie 
in the perfect lives of believers. There would be no need 
of admonition if it did. It is the work of the Holy Ghost 
and whatever holiness is manifest among the believers is 
of His giving, while apart from Him there is no holiness 
(Rom. 5:5; 8:16, 23, 26-27; 9:1; I Cor. 3: 5-7; Eph. 2: 
18-22; 3:5-6; I Thess. 1:5-6; II Thess. 2:13). The 
whole apostolic literature is simply saturated with the 
thought of the absolute dependence of the Church on the 
Holy Ghost. Without the operation of the Spirit of God 
there would be no Church. 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 151 


THE CHURCH IS CATHOLIC 


As the Church is God’s work and His work includes 
the whole human race, so the Church is not limited to 
one nation or to particular individuals who might im- 
agine themselves as particularly worthy for member- 
ship. As unbounded as is the atonement so unlimited 
is the Church. It was particularly Paul who realized 
that fact, as it was his particular share in the work of 
the Kingdom of God to clarify and demonstrate that 
truth. A Jew of the Jews he insisted that the Gentiles 
in the Church were fully the equals of the chosen peo- 
ple, because the Church is as catholic as the mission of 
Christ. Incidentally this forever precludes the idea of 
a preparation for grace that would make a nation or 
an individual particularly worthy of receiving grace 
CROnE oO: aur eee Ee Wor.i2s lo: eGal.)-Gh.4 2% 
Hoon Mpa os )-O5° Ol om.ume re tim: oe los! Lee Dim: 
1:11). Nor is that knowledge limited to fhe Epistles 
of St. Paul. John in the Revelation sees an innumerable 
multitude of those gathered from all nations, who have 
been brought into the Church and share in her final 
perfection (Rev. 7:9). 


THE CHURCH POSSESSES THE MEANS OF GRACE 


The way in which the Holy Ghost reaches the nations 
and individuals is very simple. He is active in the work 
of the Church through the instruments selected for His 
communication, and these are the same exactly as those 
given by the commandment of Christ. 

The chief means is the preaching of the Gospel. 
Neither an empty sound nor a merely human argument 
it is looked upon by the writers of the Epistles as a 
channel of salvation for all who do not resist it. It is 


152 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


not merely a statement of facts but the means for com- 
municating the power and grace of God. The Spirit 
of God is effectively with the Word (Rom. 1:16; 10:17; 
TAGors 1318-20 220-0eas tosh: oe)2ek HOME oe 
Thess. 2:13; II Thess. 2: 13-14; II Tim. 1:10; 3: 14-17; 
Titus 1: 2-3; Heb. 4:12; Jas. 1:18; I Peter 1: 23-25; IT 
Peter 1: 19-21). 

The references to the Sacraments are not so frequent 
but there is no question about them. They were taken 
for granted as a part of the Christian’s life. Where 
baptism is mentioned it is regarded as an actual means 
of union with Christ and His redemptive work and as 
a real channel of saving grace (Rom. 6:4; Gal. 3:27; 
Eph. 5: 26; Col. 2:12; Titus 3: 5-7; I Peter 3: 21). 

Likewise the Lord’s Supper is regarded by Paul as 
a great and solemn reality that is regularly to be ob- 
served by the congregation with the greatest reverence 
and with a realization of the greatness of the gift it 
conveys, a realization that is enforced by a declaration 
of the condemnation that must come to those who despise 
or disregard the presence of the Lord’s body and blood. 
Here a divine gift is given and a dire penalty awaits 
those who treat it lightly (J. Cor. 10:16-21; 11: 20, 
23-29). 


THE CHURCH HAS A VISIBLE ORGANIZATION 


Here we have been dealing with realities. An unseen 
grace has been communicated by visible and audible 
means which have been ministered by men to their fel- 
low men, in actual gatherings in various localities. The 
Church is no Platonic dream but an institution whose 
presence is perfectly evident to the world. Not only is 
it to administer discipline (the Corinthians, for ex- 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 153 


ample), but it was disgraced by public dissensions on 
occasion (I. Cor. 11: 16-18), it was called on to decide 
questions in dispute (I. Cor. 6:4) and it needed to be 
ruled, controlled, directed (II Cor. 11:28; I Tim. 3:5; 
III John 9-10). It has a tangible membership and per- 
ceptible activities (Rom. 16:1, 23; I Cor. 12:28; 14:4 
seq.; II Cor. 1:11; 8:18-19, 23-24; James 5:14). It 
makes money contributions (I Cor. 7:17; II Cor. 11:8; 
Phil. 4:15; I Tim. 5:16). It is a victim of persecution 
OGor oO: OenGalyla13- bhile 3:16); lbs foundsin 
certain localities, even in the homes of particular be- 
levers (Rom. 16:5; I Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philemon 
2). It is located at Corinth (I Cor. 1:2), in Galatia 
CleCom a6: 1 -Gal..1-2))/in Asias(h. Cor,’16:19),4in 
Macedonia (II Cor. 8:1), in Judea (Gal. 1:22), in 
Laodicea (Col. 4:16), among the Thessalonians (I Thess. 
1:1; II Thess. 1:1), among the Gentiles (Rom. 16: 4), 
at Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1), at Ephesus, Smyrna, Per- 
gamos Thyatira Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea 
(Rev. chs. 2 and 3). 

‘As to conditions for membership little is said, for a 
very good reason. The whole epistolary literature is 
addressed to baptized believers and takes it for granted 
that they have faith in Christ and have been baptized. 


THE CHURCH IS ORGANIZED WITH AN OFFICIAL MINISTRY 


The Church is already an organized society with a 
number of offices but of these one stands out very dis- 
tinctly as the pre-eminent office of the Church—the min- 
Church, as well as men who had the peculiar missioti of 
istry. The Twelve were originally pastors of the 
being witnesses to Christ and His resurrection because 
they had known Him during His earthly life. Soon, 


154 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


however, the term Apostle itself is broadened so as to 
include others besides the Twelve. Not only Paul but 
Barnabas is so called (I Cor. 9: 5-6, as previously in Acts 
14:14), while Andronicus and Junia (Rom. 16:7), 
Timothy (II Cor. 1:1; Col. 1:1) and James the brother 
of the Lord (Gal. 1:19) are placed on an equal footing 
with them on occasion. Of course the exact interpreta- 
tion of some of these passages, particularly Rom. 16:7, 
is open to grave question but at the very least the as- 
sociation of Timothy with Paul in some salutations 
shows that between their respective offices there was no 
such great gulf. Gradually the apostolate seems to be 
shading over into the office of the elders who locally take 
the place of the Apostles. So much so that Peter, who 
refers to himself at the opening of his Epistle as an 
Apostle of Jesus Christ, towards the end speaks of him- 
self as an elder addressing fellow elders (I Peter 5:1). 
That the latter office is generally established at a very 
early date is quite clear from the fact that it is already 
mentioned, as an established institution, in the Epistle 
of James (5:14). 

By whatever term it was called, apostolate, presby- 
terate or episcopate, and whether these offices are the 
same or can be differentiated, one fact always holds 
good, that their authority is derived from God Who has 
instituted them and not from the congregations to whom 
they minister. No one insists on this more strenuously 
than Paul (Rom. 1: 1-5; I Cor. 12: 28-30; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 
a: 03° 4911-125" Coll 23) 253 °4:1771 Pim 1A 
22°73 IL: Times Titus 1°3)e) He “assertseciae 
authority in many ways even to the extent of decreeing 
that one-half of the congregation, the women are 
ineligible for that office (I Cor. 14:34-35; I Tim. 
2:12), though there is no doubt about their sharing in 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 155 


all the rights of the spiritual priesthood of believers. 

The ministry, by virtue of their office, are stewards 
of the mysteries of God (I Cor. 4:1), who administer 
God’s grace (II Cor. 8:19) and who forgive sins in 
the person of Christ (II Cor. 2:10). To them is com- 
mitted the ministry of reconciliation and they are the 
very ambassadors of Christ (II Cor. 5:18-20), or, as 
Paul once puts it ambassadors of the Gospel (Eph. 
6: 19-20). He admonishes Titus to exercise authority 
(Titus 2:15), while the writer of the Epistle to the He- 
brews exhorts the congregations to respect the authority 
of their pastors (Heb. 13:7, 17). Those who fill this of- 
fice are not hirelings of the congregation, though en- 
titled to remuneration and support (I Cor. 9:11-14), 
but they are the spiritual fathers of their flocks (I Cor. 
4:15) and come to them as God’s co-workers (I Cor. 
3:9; II Cor. 6:1). Special qualifications are needed 
and special endowments are given to those who are 
called to fill this office (I. Tim. 3:1-13; 4:12-16; Titus 
1:5—2:15). If anyone cannot find the divine institu- 
tion of the office of the ministry in the New Testament 
it is simply because he does not want to see what is 
there. 


ORDINATION 


One thing remains to be considered; the method bv 
which men are inducted into the office of the ministry. 
No definite method is prescribed but the notices re- 
corded; all tell the same tale. Timothy is reminded that 
he has been given a special charism by the laying on of 
the hands of Paul and of the presbytery and through 
prayer (II Tim. 1:6; I Tim. 4:14). Apparently this 
was the form of his commissioning. In commissioning 
others Timothy is not to ordain them into the holy office 


156 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


out due consideration (I Tim. 5:22), but it is his duty 
to find fitting men to whom he can commit the faith and 
who will be able to teach it to others (II Tim. 2:2). 
Similarly Titus is directed to ‘‘Ordain elders in every 
city’’ (Titus 1:5). So the ministry provides for suc- 
cessors who will carry on the work of teaching. Their 
examination and training is to be cared for by those 
already in that office. | 


THE SPIRITUAL PRIESTHOOD 


Only it must be observed that there is no hint any- 
where that a mysterious, magic gift is thus transmitted. 
Only the charism needed for their work is assured them, 
just as God always provides the needed grace for any 
work He assigns to men. This fact does not constitute 
a sacerdotal order. All believers are clearly constituted 
kings and priests before God. No levitical priesthood 
is needed to established the communion of the indiv- 
idual soul with God (I Peter 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6), but the 
public preaching of the Word, the care of souls, the 
ordinary ministration of the Sacraments and the guid- 
ance and teaching of the Church is provided for by God 
through the office He has instituted; the office to which 
is ordinarily committed the means of grace in which the 
Holy Ghost is operative. This office by virtue of divine 
institution derives its authority from God, not by delega- 
tion from the congregation. It ministers a divine grace 
through the appointed means but this grace is supplied 
by the Holy Ghost and not through the personal endow- 
ments of the minister. 


THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH 


The thought of a mystical union between the believer 
and Christ occurs again and again, and united with it 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 157 


the idea of a resulting fellowship between the members 
of the Church who are bound together as they are united 
by faith to the one Lord. Paul loves to use the figure 
of the Body of Christ as a description of the Church 
(Eph. 1: 22-23; Col. 1:18, 24), the believers being parts 
of that body, members of His flesh and of His bones 
(Eph. 5:30). As a result of that intimate union with 
the Lord their hearts must also be knit together in love 
(Col. 2:2). Again he sees this union typified by the 
union between man and wife (Eph. 5: 25-32). Nothing 
is so abhorrent to him as the thought of a schism between 
believers and his Epistles to the Corinthians are a 
vigorous protest against such divisions. He knows of 
only one Church and that one Church is to be a unity. 
John loves to repeat the same thought under a different 
figure. He speaks of it as a being in Christ, a fellowship 
that also unites those who realize it to each other (I 
John 1: 3, 7): 

But this fellowship is not merely an indefinite relation- 
ship of good will and mutual affection. As it is a real 
union that springs from faith in the same Lord and 
union with the same head it must be the expression of 
the one faith. There is a true unity of the Church that 
results from a common faith and that must find ex- 
pression in a common doctrine and a united confession 
of one teaching. The New Testament knows only of one 
God, one Baptism, one Church, one faith, one doctrine 
of Jesus Christ. Never is there any hint that men have 
a right to ‘‘agree to disagree’’ concerning that faith, 
and still less any idea that real believers should want 
to do so. Liberalism is the favorite idol of the age of 
the Illumination, but it is totally foreign to the New 
Testament. There, as we shall presently see, we find 
what our age likes to slander as bigotry. 


158 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


In this great fellowship of those united to Christ there 
is then an essential unity of faith; not simply of a sub- 
jective trust but of an objective teaching, a common 
dogma. The common communion of believers with 
Christ is a sign of their own inner unity with each other 
(I Cor. 10:17). In his great hymn of the Church, the 
Epistle to the Ephesians, Paul deduces this unity as 
a necessary consequence of the unity of God, of revela- 
tion and of the means of grace (Eph. 4:1-6). The faith 
of the Gospel must produce one spirit and one mind 
(Phil. 1:27). So wonderful is this fellowship of faith 
in Christ that in the Epistle to the Hebrews the per- 
fected saints are still regarded as being in the member- 
ship of the Church, and those yet living are in fellow- 
ship with them (Heb. 12: 22-23). In this unity of faith 
there is indeed a wonderful diversity of operations, a 
wide difference of talents, but that cannot disturb the 
inner bond of a common faith and doctrine that unites 
them in the mystical body of Christ (Rom. 12:4-5; I 
Cor. 12:4-27). Only in this faith there must be no 
wavering from the common confession (Heb. 13:9; Col. 
P28)! 

The apostolic writers do not shrink from the thought 
of this ‘bond involving a common creed, and with great 
vehemence denounce those who would corrupt the doc- 
trine they have delivered to the Church. They warn 
against any departure from the faith once delivered to 
the saints (Jude 3). Even a creed, a form of sound 
words is insisted on (II Tim. 1:13; Titus 1:9), and 
any false teacher who departs from the Gospel as it 
has been preached is to be shunned (Rom. 16:17; I Cor. 
1:10-13; If Cor. 11:3-4; I Tim. 6:3-5, 20-21). The 
heretic who persisted after repeated admonition was to 
be rejected (Titus 3:9-11). This rule knows no excep- 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 159 


tion for Paul himself, even an angel from heaven was 
to be accounted accursed should either attempt to preach 
any other Gospel (Gal. 1:8). Every congregation must 
be ready thus to discriminate between true and false 
teachers, rejecting those who err (Rev. 2:2, 9, 14-15). 
Indeed John, the Apostle of love, is so bitter that he 
would not have believers receive such teachers into their 
houses nor bid them God speed (II John 8-11). This 
is something more than a return of the fiery and ill- 
advised zeal of the Son of Zebedee before the Samaritan 
village; it is a feeling, shared by all the Apostles alike, 
in so far as their utterances are recorded, that false 
teaching is destructive both for the teacher and for the 
Church. Those guilty of grave moral transgressions 
were to be sought out, if still they might be saved, but 
the persistent false teacher was to be put out. There 
was no place for him in the Church, he was disrupting 
its very bond of union, and by obscuring the truth con- 
cerning Christ was imperiling the relation of the soul 
to Christ. This feeling is clearly expressed in Second 
Peter, where we read of damnable heresies which bring 
swift destruction to those who hold them (II Peter 
2:1-2) and also of a wresting of the Scriptures that 
produces a similar result (II Peter 3:16). 


AN ADMIXTURE OF EVIL IS STILL FOUND IN THE CHURCH 


Even when holding most firmly to the truth the 
Church is still imperfect and has unworthy members 
in her midst. Like the individual the Church is warring 
with sin within as well as in the world without. Her 
holiness is not a stainless perfection of Her member- 
ship. Paul might address the Corinthians as saints, 
but the Hpistle itself makes it very clear that not all 


160 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


of that congregation were saintly in their lives. He 
complains about what he has suffered from false breth- 
ren in various places and John refers to similar con- 
ditions (I John 2:19). More than one Epistle has its 
census of wrong doers within the Church, and the re- 
peated exhortations to virtue are a convincing testimony 
that the Apostolic Church was no Donatistic Society, nor 
a band of Pharisees dreaming about their own perfec- 
tions, but a community of believers who were being 
sanctified by the Holy Ghost. The sinner was ac- 
counted righteous before God, through faith, but his 
final sanctification, as also that of the Church, was a 
process that continues till a final consummation (Eph. 
5: 26-27). 


Ill. Tue Systematic STATEMENT OF THE DocTRINE OF 
THE CHURCH 


The task remains of gathering together the statements 
of the Lord, as understood through the early history 
of the Church and the comments of the Apostles, into 
a systematic statement. 


I. WHAT IS THE CHURCH? 


Augustine, who largely understood the Kingdom of 
God, like most of the Fathers, in an eschatological sense, 
also perceived its present significance. In the De 
Civitate Det (XX, ch. 9, he says: ‘‘Ecclesia et nunc est 
regnum Christi, regnumque Caelorum.’’ The Church is 
the present manifestation of the Kingdom of God, the 
continuation of the mission of Christ, the institution 
founded for conveying to men His redemption, the place 
of His special presence, the assembly of believers, the 
communion of saints in which the Holy Ghost mediates 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 161 


that redemption by His grace. The Church is the as- 
surance of the nearness of God and His grace. There 
we find Him. There is no longer need for a quest of 
the Holy Grail, nor a pilgrimage to distant shrines or 
holy places afar off. Where the Church is, there God 
is, manifested in the flesh, through Word and Sacra- 
ments. We might call the Church the Transeunt 
Organon of the Kingdom of God. This is indeed a bar- 
barous terminology but it will serve to keep in mind 
the twofold character of the Church, which is truly 
transeunt, in the sense in which Frank used that word. 
It is both spiritual and material, heavenly and earthly, 
a matter of experience and an object of faith, a divine 
creation and an earthly association. 

Perhaps we can just as well describe that twofold 
character by the classic definition of the Church as the 
Communion of Saints,’ if we are careful to remember 
that this communion has been established and is only 
made possible through the activity of the Holy Ghost, 
while on the other hand the Communion of Saints by 
ministering the grace of the Holy Ghost becomes truly 
the mother of those who are brought into the fellow- 
ship of faith. The Communion of Saints is a neces- 
sary consequence of true discipleship. Men cannot be 
disciples of Christ, united to Him by the bond of faith, 
without being united to each other. The supreme real- 
ization of the believer’s union with Christ comes in the 
Holy Supper, yet Paul very specifically reminds the 
Corinthians that this action also establishes a bond of 
fellowship between those who partake of it. The Lord’s 





*The view that the “Communion of Saints” in the Creed is only 
a definition or description of the Church is far older than Luther, 
though he gave it the widest currency, through the Smalkald 
Articles. Nicetas of Remisciana about 400 A. D. explains the Church 
as the “communion with all the saints.” 


162 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


Prayer, with its plural intercessions and petitions for 
the coming of God’s Kingdom, is only realized in the 
Church. By a very inner necessity we are a part of 
the Church if we have a part in Christ. And further- 
more as that grace that has caused our faith is min- 
istered by the Church, the Church is truly our mother 
and without her we do not have God for our Father.’ 
This being the case the old aphorism, Extra Ecclesiam 
nulla salus, which so often sounds harsh and unpleasant 
to modern ears is only the correct statement of an in- 
evitable fact, a necessary logical consequence of the 
whole teaching of the Lord. Scripture knows of no 
Christianity apart from the Church, and so we will 
have to say with Luther: ‘‘Wer Christum finden soll, 
der muss die Kirchen am ersten finden. Wie wollt man 
wissen, wo Christus ware und sein Glaube, wenn man 
nicht wiisste, wo seine Glaubigen sind? Und wer etwas 
von Christo wissen will, der muss nicht ihm selbs trauen, 
noch eine eigene Briick in den Himmel bauen durch sein 
eigen Vernunft, sondern zu der Kirchen gehen, diesel- 
bige bestichen und fragen .... Denn ausser der christ- 
lichen Kirchen ist keine Wahrheit, kein Christus, keine 
Seligkeit.’’ Kirchenpostilla, Ev. am II Christtag. (Hr. 
ed. 10, p. 170 seq.). 


THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE ‘‘ECCLESIA PROPRIE DICTA’’” 


AND THE ‘‘ECCLESIA LARGE DICTA’’ 


But what manner of Church is meant, a visible or- 
ganization or a purely spiritual and invisible fellow- 


"As Musaeus has well put it: “Ecclesia enim non solum fidelium 
congregatio est, sed etiam mater eorum, Esa. 54:1, Gal. 4: 26, quae 
ex semine Verbi et Sacramento baptismi spirituales filios et filias 
concipit et parit, natosque spirituali cibo educat et ad aeternam 
een, tandem perducit.” Tractatus De Ecclesia, 1675, part II, 
p. 16. 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 163 


ship? That opens at once a question that has been the 
topic of innumerable controversies, many of which 
might have been avoided if the use of the terms visible 
and invisible Church had never crept into common use. 
Far better is the distinction made in the Apology for 
the Augsburg Confession where there is a discrimina- 
tion between the Church large dicta and proprie dicta. 
These are still the most satisfactory terms to describe 
the difference between the Church in its appearance and 
its essential reality. The New Testament knows of only 
one Church, yet in that one Church as men see it not 
all are true believers and real Christians. There is 
dross with the gold, tares with the wheat and a Judas 
among the Twelve. The distinction between these two 
classes, however, is not one of relative perfection. The 
very best remain imperfect and Paul expressly states 
that he has not yet attained perfection but is only striv- 
ing after it. The distinction is between those found in 
the external organization who are really united to Christ 
by faith, the essential condition for real membership in 
the Church, and those who have made an outward pro- 
fession, who to all appearances are a part of the Church 
but who lack real faith. These latter are in the Church 
but not really of the Church.’ 

The first, the essential Church, is the coetus vere 
credentium. They alone are really members of the Body 

*Luther sometimes made the distinction between “die wahre 
Kirche” and “die gemachte Kirche.” ‘“Drumb, umb mehres Vor- 
stands und der Kurz willen wollen wir die zwo Kirchen nennen mit 
unterscheidlichen Namen. Die erste, die naturlich, grundlich, wes- 
entlich und wahrhaftig ist, wollen wir heissen ein geistliche, inner- 
liche Christenheit. Die andere, die gemacht and Ausserlich ist, wollen 
wir heissen ein leibliche, Ausserlich Christenheit: nit dass wir sie 
von einander scheiden wollen; sondern zugleich, als, wenn ich von 
einem Menschen rede, und ihn nach der Seelen ein geistlichen, nach 
dem Leib ein leiblichen Menschen nenne; oder wie der Apostel 


pflegt innerlichen und dusserlichen Menschen zu nennen.” Von dem 
Papsthum zu Rom., etc. (Er. 27: 102. Weimar 6: 296-297). 


164 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


of Christ. The second, the Church in a wider sense, 
is the coetus vocatorum, all those who have been bap- 
tized and are in the outward fellowship of the Church. 
But these are emphatically NOT two Churches. Both 
classes belong objectively to the same Church; the dif- 
ference between them is a subjective one. In the 
ecclesia large dicta all have received the same divine 
grace, all have the same Word and Sacraments, all have 
been touched by the Holy Ghost, all have received the 
grace necessary for regeneration, but not all have ful- 
filled the necessary condition of faith, which is needed 
to gain the benefits of this grace. Though the oppor- 
tunity is theirs some have prevented the consummation 
of the mystical union with Christ through their unbelief. 
They have been brought into the Church but have re- 
fused to become part of the Church. To use an architec- 
tural figure, they may be said to have entered the build- 
ing but only as far as the narthex, they have not passed 
into the nave and they have no part in the blessings 
that are being offered in the sanctuary. They are a 
part of the congregatio vocatorum, but they do not fully 
share in the communio sanctorum. By God’s grace they 
are in the Church; that they are not really partakers 
of the grace there ministered is their own fault. Those 
who are true believers have appropriated that grace but 
both classes are in the Church large dicta and neither is 
to be found outside the coetus vocatorum. 

*Sometimes Luther uses an older distinction, when he speaks of 
the soul and body of the Church as seen in the last sentence of note 
8. With him it is only incidental but Bellarmine develops the idea 
at some length and distinguishes between those who belong both to 
the soul and body of the Church, those who belong to the soul but 
not to the body and those who belong to the body but not to the 
soul. This terminology, however, is just as dangerous as the ex- 
pressions visible and invisible. It even leads to absurdities, for as 
Musaeus points out (De. Ecclesia I p. 174), the figure of the Church 


as the body of Christ is that of a living body, which requires the 
presence of the anima as well as the corpus. 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 165 


These terms, large dicta and proprie dicta, are not 
synonymous with the distinction between a visible and 
an invisible Church that was later imported into Luth- 
eran theology and has remained to plague it to the 
present day. The Church proprie dicta has its visible 
side as well as its invisible essence. It is true that the 
number of the elect is invisible, the presence of the Holy 
Ghost and the divine grace of redemption are all mat- 
ters of faith but because the essential nature of the 
Church is only perceived by faith it does not follow 
that the Church has become a Platonic state or an in- 
tellectual figment (Apology, Art. VII). The true, es- 
sential Church, the Communion of Saints has its visible 
side as we shall see in a moment. It must be percep- 
tible. If it were not so Jesus Christ Himself would have 
been a phantom. The terminology, half true in itself, 
nevertheless brings with it the danger of falling into a 
Docetie conception of the Church. It is a fiction that 
actually imperils the Lutheran doctrine of the means of 
grace. It is true that Luther used the expression, even 
before Zwingli, but not in the sense in which it was 
later used.” It has resulted in unfruitful discussions as 


*See Reinhold Seeberg, Der Begriff der christlichen Kirche, p. 
91. For Luther the essence of the Church is indeed always invisible 
but at the same time the Church is always perceptible through the 
means of grace. It is audible in the Word and visible in the Sac- 
raments: “Die Zeichen dabei man dausserlich merken kann, wo 
dieselb Kirch in der Welt ist, sein die Tauf, Sacrament und das 
Evangelium, und nit Rom, diess oder der Ort. Dann wo die Tauf 
und Evangelium ist da soll Niemand zweifeln es sein Heiligen da, 
und solltens gleich eitel Kind in der Wiegen sein. Rom aber oder 
papstlich Gewalt ist nicht ein Zeichen der Christenheit; dann, dieselb 
Gewalt macht keinen Christen wie die Tauf und das Evangelium 
thut; darumb gehoret sie auch nicht zur rechten Christenheit und 
ist ein menschlich Ordnung.” Vom Papstthum zu Rom. (Er. 27: 
108. W. 6: 301). 


166 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


to the priority of the visible or the invisible Church,” 
when they are actually synchronous.” The later use of 
the expression is actually an importation from Re- 
formed sources. Among the Reformed the distinction 
is a natural one. According to their views there are 
no actual means of grace, there is no unlimited atone- 
ment, no assurance of salvation, for that rests ultimately 
on an inscrutable decree of election, and so there nat- 
urally comes into being the idea of an invisible Church, 
which is the coetus electorum or praedestinatorum, an 
entity that is essentially separate and apart from the 
visible coetus vocatorum. 

The term ‘‘invisible Church’’ was never really at 
home in Lutheran theology. Even when it is universally 
used by the later dogmaticians they are compelled to 
explain that they do not teach the existence of two 
Churches. One of the first to give prevalence to the 
term was A)gedius Hunnius in his Articulus de Ecclesia 
Vera, 1591, the first Lutheran monograph on the doc- 
trine of the Church. In the same year came the post- 
humous publication of Chemnitz’s Loci, with the same 
designation that had evidently been used for some time 
by Chemnitz in his lectures. From this time onward 
the term passes into common use, though accompanied 
with the explanation that only one Church is meant, 
contemplated from two viewpoints, and that the elect 
are only to be found in the visible Church. The con- 


* Hofling vs. Mohler. See J. W. F. eee Grundsaetze evangelisch- 
lutherischer Kirchenverfassung, 3d ed. p. 


2 The fallacy has been well stated by st “__vielmehr ist das 
die Kirche constituierende Unsichtbare immer zugleich da mit den 
diussern Zeichen und Mitteln,—der die Gemeine schaffende Geist 
zugleich mit Wort und Sakrament,—das Wesen der Kirche fallt 
aber allerdings nie in etwas Ausseres, und wo nur erst Ausseres, 
Sichtbares ist, da ist noch gar keine Kirche.” Julius Kostlin, 
Luther’s Lehre von der Kirche, 2d ed., p. 85. 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 167 


tinual need for such explanations shows how ambiguous 
and dangerous was the terminology.” 

The way in which the exact nature of the visibility 
of the Church is stated becomes an expression of the 
spirit of entire systems of theology. The Roman sys- 
tem, with its materializing, Hutychianizing tendency at- 
tempts to make the Church completely and essentially 
visible. Its classic expression has been given by Bell- 
armine in his De Ecclesia: ‘‘ Ecclesia est coetus hominum 
eiusdem christianae fidei professione et eorundem sac- 
ramentorum communione colligatus, sub remigine leg- 
itimorum pastorum ac praecipue unius Christe in terris 
vicarti Romani Pontificis.’? And this is further de- 
veloped in the famous statement (bk. III, 2)“ He- 
clesia est coetus hominum ita visibilis et palpabilis ut 
est coetus populi Romam, vel regnum Galliae aut 
respublica Venetorum.’’ Had this comparison been. in- 
tended merely to stress the fact that the Church is really 
perceptible it would not have been so bad, but the like- 
ness in Bellarmin’s mind was to the political systems 
he mentions. With him the Church is a judiciary ad- 
ministering the Nova Lew. In this particular as in all 
others the doctrine of the Church is entwined and inter- 
woven with the whole theological fabric. 

The Roman conception of the visibility of the Church 


8 There are two outstanding monographs on Luther’s teaching 
concerning the church: Julius Kostlin’s, Luther’s Lehre von der 
Kirche, and Wilhelm Walther’s Das Erbe der Reformation, Viertes 
Heft, Luther’s Kirche. 

For a thorough discussion of the terms visible and invisible as 
applied to the Church, see A. F. O. Munchmeyer, Das Dogma von der 
sichtbaren und unsichtbaren Kirche, and Reinhold Seeberg, Der 
Begriff der christlichen Kirche as well as his Lehrbuch der Dog- 
mengeschichte, 2d ed. The first named monograph of Seeberg’s is 
particularly valuable, though it has a strange omission. In the very 
extensive survey of the literature on the subject A‘gedius Hunnius 
is completely ignored. 


168 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


is determined by the idea of a grace dependent on a 
clerical order. The Reformed idea of an invisible 
Church springs from the dogma of predestination, from 
the thought of a decree of election that is independent 
of and antecedent to all means of grace, and, in its most 
extreme form, even to the atonement. The hidden de- 
crees demand a hidden Church and largely diminish the 
importance of a visible Church. Zwingli even goes so 
far as to include in his invisible Church some of the 
heathen. The Lutheran conception of one visible- 
invisible Church is a necessary corollary to the fact 
of an invisible grace that is ministered by visible means; 
that has an objective reality of its own and that is 
necessary to regeneration, but that requires a subjective 
appropriation to gain its blessing. 

Thus far we have only partly considered the nature 
of the Church, and a further question confronts us. 


II. WHAT IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH? 


The Activity of the Holy Ghost is Essential to the 
Church 


The great fault of most descriptions of the Church, 
and particularly the practical application of the doctrine 
of the Church in most theological systems is the undue 
emphasis that is laid on the human elements of the 
Church, with a corresponding neglect of the essential 
divine factor of the Church—the Holy Ghost. For the 
Church is neither the forum of the politicians, nor the 
hall of the philosophers, nor an aggregation of those 
holding certain beliefs, who have gravitated together 
through mutual attraction, but it is a divine creation, 
the house of the living God, the temple of the Holy 
Ghost. 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 169 


THE CHURCH DOES NOT EXIST APART FROM BELIEVERS WHO 
HAVE BEEN REGENERATED BY THE HOLY GHOST 


Of course this includes believers who have been re- 
generated by the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost without 
believers is no Church, but believers without the Holy 
Ghost are an impossibility, and no matter how men are 
banded together or with what titles they might be des- 
ignated they cannot constitute a Church without God’s 
Spirit. Even a legally incorporated human association 
for the advancement of the interests of the Kingdom of 
God would no more be the Church, than a society for 
ethical research or a department for the study of com- 
parative religions. There are two things essential for 
the Church: first, the activity and presence of the Holy 
Ghost; second, the regenerated personalities, but these 
are absolutely dependent on the first. Where men are 
unbelieving they are not of the Church because, being 
unregenerate they cannot be in living union with the 
Body of Christ. 

The matter was well stated by Ireneus (Adv. Haer. 
I, 5): “Ubi ecclesia, ibi et spiritus, et ubi spiritus 
Dei, rllic et ecclesia et omnis gratia,’’ while a funda- 
mental mistake of much of the dogmatic consideration 
of this topic has been the practical separation of the 
two. It may have been only an accident or have been 
occasioned by considerations of convenience, but it is 
nevertheless significant that in the threefold division of 
the Creed, which forms the basis of Calvin’s Institutes, 
the third part should be split in two, so that the fourth 
part dealing with the Church comes like an appendix 
considered separately from the doctrine of the Holy 
Ghost. A similar criticism might apply to many Luth- 
eran dogmatics. 


170 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


How closely and inseparably these two should be knit 
together has been splendidly stated by Luther: ‘‘Darum 
ist unser Glaube (Glaubensbekenntniss) so geordnet 
das der Artikel: ‘Vergebung der Stinden’ muss stehen 
nach dem Artikel: ‘eine heilige christliche Kirche’ und 
vor dem (vorher muss stehen): ‘ich glaube an den 
Heiligen Geist auf dass erkannt werde, wie ohne den 
Heiligen Geist keine Kirche ist und ohne heilige 
Kirche keine Vergebung der Siinden,’’ Von der 
Beicht, etc. (Yar: 27: 351; W. 8: 163). 


THE PRESENCE OF THE HOLY GHOST IS ASSURED BY THE 
MEANS OF GRACE 


If the Holy Ghost be present with His grace we have 
the assurance of God’s promises that there will be at 
least some believers. So the essential proof of the ex- 
istence of the Church is the proof of His presence. The 
marks of the Church that prove the presence of God’s 
Spirit are the Word and Sacraments. These divinely 
given channels of grace are essential to the continuity, 
the extension and the unity of the Church. The Word 
and the Sacraments with their vital grace are essential 
to the Church because, in God’s providence, they are 
the divinely constituted means for the continuation of 
the mission of Jesus Christ; they are the channels of 
the divine energy of the Holy Ghost. To destroy or 
injure the Word is like severing the nerves of a natural 
body and thus destroying the means of intelligent per- 
ception and activity; to destroy the Sacraments or to 
mutilate them, is like constricting the arteries that bring 
nourishment and life to the various members. This is 
particularly the crime of the false subjectivism and 
individualism of our own day. It has no appreciation 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 171 


of the sacramental character of the means of grace and 
lowers them to the plane of sacrifical actions, following 
in this particular especially the guidance of Schleier- 
macher. 

To make discipline or an apostolic succession one of 
the marks of the Church, is to substitute natural or in- 
cidental functions and even, in the case of the succes- 
sion, non-essential matters for these essentials required 
for the existence of the Church. No statement of the 
marks of the Church is better, clearer or more concise 
than that found in the Augsburg Confession: ‘‘The 
Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel 
is rightly taught and the sacraments rightly ad- 
ministered. ”’ 

Besides these essentials Scripture has also described 
certain characteristics which are to distinguish the 
Church. 

} 
Ill. WHAT ARE THE ATTRIBUTES OF THE CHURCH? 


THE CHURCH IS ONE 


When Caiaphas unconsciously prophesied the truth 
that it was expedient for the Lord to die for that na- 
tion, John adds the comment, ‘‘And not for that nation 
only, but that also he should gather together in one the 
children of God that were scattered abroad.’’ The 
Church is not only universal but an undivided unity. In 
the apostolic band there had been at first not only a 
certain narrowness towards outsiders, particularly to- 
wards Samaritans and Gentiles, but also a certain spirit 
of rivalry and jealously between themselves. The first 
lesson they had to learn as a company was their common 
equality, their equal dependence on their Lord and the 
organic fellowship that was established between them 


172 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


through their relation to the Master. There was no 
place among the Twelve for individualism, but there was 
a bond of union in one Master, one truth, one purpose, 
one grace, one fellowship, and communion divine. Judas 
was the only exception, and he made himself the 
exception. 

So, as the original band of disciples has multiplied 
and is dispersed over the whole earth, and assembled 
in innumerable congregations, the unity still remains 
the same. There is still only one fold and one Shep- 
herd. That the Lord has promised His presence wher- 
ever the two or three are gathered together in His name 
does not mean the exaltation of the local congregations 
into independent and separate entities, but is only a 
pledge of their participation in all the blessings of the 
one Church and an assurance of their articulation in 
the Mystical Body of Christ. Throughout the Church 
universal remains the unit. Hach congregation may 
possess all the fulness of the Gospel, with all its saving 
grace, and all the powers of the Church, but it does so 
because it is a fraction of the Church where each part 
is on an equality and where the common possession 
belongs to each one, and where what belongs to each one 
belongs to all. For there is ever one Church, existing 
in many parts. This Church is not an arithmetical sum 
total of its congregations, but a unit of which each con- 
gregation is a fraction. True, each congregation pos- 
sesses all the powers of the whole Church, in so far as 
the matter concerns only that congregation. When it 
concerns the whole Church as in matters of doctrine or 
even of common practice, as it involves relations to 
other congregations or the common good of all, the sin- 
gle congregation cannot claim what belongs to the 
totality of congregations. Too much stress cannot be 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 173 


laid on the unity of the Church at this day, when a 
false congregationalism seeks to exalt the single con- 
gregation at the expense of the whole Church, and when 
a distorted independency tries to make the Church a 
mere collection of congregations, instead of realizing 
that each congregation is only a portion of the whole 
Church. Even as extreme a theologian as Hofling 
whose teaching concerning the Church and ministry has 
not been helpful to a proper regard for either, rec- 
ognizes that danger. It may be well to let him speak 
the warning. ‘‘At all events,’’ he says, ‘‘the andepend- 
ency of the single congregation is not what follows as 
a consequence of Protestant principles, and conse- 
quently, our Church, from the very beginning, rightly 
provided that for each territory, at least, a common 
legal order, a common code of laws and a supreme ad- 
ministration was recognized and became operative. Just 
as it contradicts the idea of being a Christian to be a 
solitary Christian, so it contradicts the idea of the Chris- 
tion congregation to be only a single or a local congre- 
gation. Even when there is only a single Christian in 
a given place he already includes the idea of a congrega- 
tion and the purpose of forming a congregation and 
with this also the idea and purpose of the Church. While 
the whole Christian Church was still limited to the local 
congregation at Jerusalem, it already stood in an es- 
sential distinction over that local congregation. The 
Church does not grow out of the idea of the congrega- 
tion, but in exactly opposite fashion, the congregation 
is born, in an organic way, of the Church. As the 
Church only comes into existence in the individual 
Christian and congregation, so the opposite is true, that 
these only come to their full Christian and churchly ex- 


174 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


istence as they are included in the universal Church. 
(Kirchenverfassung, p. 22).” 

Between the various parts of the Church there is not 
only the perfect bond established by the common mys- 
tical union with Christ, but unity also finds expression 
in a common confession. The Lord has not only de- 
manded that individual followers should confess Him 
but He has pointed out that there is need of a common 
collective confession by the whole group of disciples, as 
well as an individual one. Here also all are to be alike 
and undivided. The confession of Peter is to be the 
confession of the whole Church. That confession was 
the first creed of the Church and all subsequent creeds 
have had a similar origin, growing out of the command 
of the Lord, and occasioned by the opposition of a 
hostile world. Faithful disciples must confess the com- 
mon faith in the face of the denials and attacks and 
heresies of false teachers. Thus regarded, as the good 
confession of the united believers in the Church, creeds 
become not only human documents, but as they confess 
the truth once delivered to the saints, and as they are 
the result of a faith that has been divinely worked in 
men’s hearts by the grace of God, they are also, in so 
far, the work of the Holy Ghost. 

It is impossible to overestimate the importance of the 
common creed for the unity of the Church. The unity 
of the Church results from the common union of all its 





* How an older generation stated the matter is best illustrated by 
the remark of Musaeus: “Habet quidem Ecclesia etiam suas locales 
et corporales congregationes conventusque, in quibus Verbum Dei 
docetur, et Sacramenta administratur; quibus Christus quoque suam 
gratiosam praesentiam promisit; wbi, inquens, duo vel tres congregati 
sunt in nomine meo, ibi adero in medio ipsorum, Matt. XVIII, 20. 
Verum hae congregationes Ecclesiae essentiales non sunt. In- 
stituuntur enim statis temporibus, ad peragenda sacra, et iis peractis 
dissolvuntur.” De Eccl. I, p. 117 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 175 


members in Christ, through faith. But the fides qua 
creditur can only spring from the fides quae creditur. 
Therefore to keep the confession of the objective faith 
undivided is of such paramount importance for the unity 
of the Church. Pure doctrine does not assure a pure 
personal faith but it is nevertheless the best basis for 
such a faith. Such personal faith may exist in indiv- 
iduals in spite of error and false doctrine, but if it is 
to be kept alive in the Church as a whole it must be by 
the common confession of the true faith. Nothing is so 
destructive of personal faith as false teaching. We 
can best state it perhaps in Kostlin’s paraphrase of 
Luther’s teaching on this question: ‘‘And since the 
faithful are begotten through the Word it is all import- 
ant for the fundamental existence of the Church that 
the Word be maintained uncorrupted and that really 
sound doctrine be drawn from it. This being the case 
there is always in the Word itself the necessary power 
by which everything impure in life or conversation that 
might creep in can and must be eliminated; ‘for where 
the teaching is false the life cannot be amended, but 
where the teaching is maintained in its purity it is 
always possible to correct the life and counsel the sinner’ 
(Hr. 44:95; W. 47:290).’’ Luther’s Lehre von der 
Kirche, pp. 86-87. 


THE CHURCH IS HOLY 


The holiness of the Church does not require much 
discussion for the holiness of the mission committed to 
the Church should be a matter of course. Every ethical 
teaching of Christ and the Apostles emphasises that de- 
mand for holiness. The grace of sanctification is given 
in the Church. The final completion of her work will 


176 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


be the perfect holiness of her members. In her the 
Holy Ghost is the living principle and the holiness of 
Christ is the justification of all within her fold. If it 
were not to give back holiness to those who had lost it 
there would be no meaning in the mission of Christ or 
of His Church. 

Only two facts must be noted. There is a continual 
need of guarding against a Donatistic conception of that 
holiness on the one hand and against a compromising 
attitude towards the world on the other. One makes 
of the Church a sect and the other secularizes it. The 
holiness of the Church is bound to provoke a certain 
antagonism from a world, that always remains the 
world, and that lieth wholly in wickedness. The dream 
of a theocratic government of the world by a Church- 
state, which always involves some kind of a concordat 
between the world and the Church, whether indulged in 
by Gregory VII or by John Calvin, is in the end de- 
structive of the true holiness of the Church. The Church 
is to be the ethical leaven of society, but from the world 
that is unwilling to be regenerated it must remain sep- 
arated. It is in the world but not of the world. So 
heresy tries to eliminate this distinction and in a false 
catholicity loses its holiness, and ultimately its con- 
sciousness of the necessity of the Church for salvation.” 


THE CHURCH IS CATHOLIC 


The Church is as universal, as worldwide as the mis- 
sion of Christ. It is not bound to any self-selecting 





* A very interesting monograph on the terms heresy and sect has 
been written by Hermann Schmidt in the form of a brilliant his- 
torical essay: Die Kirche. Ihre biblische Idee und die Formen ihrer 
geschichlichen Erscheinung in ihrem Unterschiede von Sekte und 
Haerese. Leipsic, 1884. 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 177 


membership, nor to the choice of ecclesiastical author- 
ities, to any place or language (not even to Latin, or 
German, or English!) nor to any particular place, not 
even to the Bishopric of Rome. The great missionary 
commission given the Church, the very fact that it is 
a continuation of the mission of Jesus Christ, makes it 
catholic, and because it is catholic it must reach out to 
all nations and all conditions of men. It is also a cath- 
olicity that includes all ages. Begun on Pentecost the 
Church Catholic must transcend the bonds of time as 
well as those of nationality. What will be established 
tomorrow, or what began today or yesterday cannot be 
the Church of Christ. The perpetuity of the Church is 
only her catholicity regarded under the catagory of 
time. But this catholicity does not mean diversity of 
faith, it does not destroy the essential unity of the 
Church that it has existed through the ages and among 
various nations. Quite the contrary, it presupposes 
that unity as the basis of a real catholicity. It is the 
one and same Church that is universal, were it changed 
it would cease to be universal. So the term catholic 
as applied to the Church that has always existed with 
the same essential faith in all places, soon came to have 
a secondary meaning; it became a designation of the 
true confession, the true faith, the true teaching which 
is characteristic of the Church. It came to signify the 
Church’s fidelity to its basis of unity under all condi- 
tions. Thus catholic also comes to mean orthodox. 
Frequently this second meaning becomes more prom- 
inent than the first. So Musaeus (De Ecclesia I, p. 137) 
considers the two meanings in this order: Solet enim 
Ecclesia denominart catholica duplict postissimum 
respectu. I. In respectu et oppositione ad Ecclesiam 
heterodoxam et falsam. II. In respectu et oppositione 


178 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


ad Ecclesiam, certo aliquo loco aut gente conclusam. 

‘“Priort Catholica Ecclesia idem est, quod Ecclesia 
vera et orthodoxa et denominatur ita a doctrina 
Catholica, h. e. ab orthodoxa et vera Christi et Aposto- 
lorum doctrina, quae cum haereses in Ecclesia passim 
invalescerent, differentiae causa dicta est Catholica, 
quod a Christo et Apostolis tradita, et inde ab ipsorum 
temporibus per uniwersam Ecclesiam unanimi consensu 
recepta et credita sit.’’ 

This use of catholic as a synonym of orthodox is by 
no means modern. For example, Ignatius uses it in 
the sense of ‘‘the one and only,’’ the first step toward 
the meaning orthodox.” 

In itself the mere use of a term would not be of such 
importance were it not for the part it played at the time 
of the Reformation. Then it was used again and again 
in the sense of ‘‘true,’’ ‘‘orthodox,’’ and becomes in- 
volved in the question as to which is the true Church. 
Here we face the question as to whether a particular 
Church can in this sense, claim to be the true Church 
Catholic. It is a mere matter of history that both the 
fact and the name were claimed by the Lutheran Church 
for itself and its teaching. Because of some of the weak 
and apologetic Lutheranism of modern times it will 
profit to go into this matter a little more in detail. 

The Augsburg Confession insists expressly on its 
catholicity: ‘‘Our churches dissent in no article of faith 
from the Church Catholic, but omit some abuses which 
are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by 





* Smyr. 8:2. See the discussion by Ferdinand Kattenbusch in the 
Festgabe—A. von Harnack—dargebracht. Tibingen 1921, p. 148. 
For other references to similar usages see Musaeus, De Eccl. I, 
p. 187 seq. Likewise, but taking a different view from Kattenbusch, 
Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, Part II, I, 414 seq. 621 seq. II, 
310-312. 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 179 


fault of the times.’’ And again, ‘‘Only those things 
have been recounted, whereof we thought that it was 
necessary to speak, so that it might be understood that 
in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on 
our part against Scripture, or the Church Catholic, since 
it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that 
no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our 
churches.’’ 

Luther is likewise very emphatic in his claims: ‘‘Ja, 
sagen sie, wir Papisten sind blieben in der alten 
vorigen Kirchen, sint der Apostel Zeiten her; darumb 
sind wir die rechten aus der alten Kirchen kommen, und 
bis daher blieben: ihr aber seid von uns gefallen, und 
eine neue Kirchen worden wider uns. Antwort: wie 
aber, wenn ich beweiset, dass wir bei der rechten Kir- 
chen blieben, ja dass wir die rechte alte Kirche sind; 
ihr aber von uns, dass ist, von der alten Kirchen 
abtriinng worden, ein neue Kirchen angericht habt, 
wider die alte Kirche.’’ Wider Hans Wurst (Er. 26:12; 
W. 51: 478-479). 

‘‘Hiemit haben wir nu beweiset, dass wir die rechte 
alte Kirche sind, mit der ganzen heiligen christlichen 
Kirchen Ein Korper und Hine Gemeine der Heiligen.’’ 
(Ibid. Er. 26:17; W. 51: 487).” 

Melanchthon in the treatise De recusatione concilii, 
1537, very clearly denies the name catholic to the 
Romanists :—‘‘quae doctrinam Evangelit puram hos- 
tiliter persequitur, nonest catholica Christi.’’? The 
Evangelical Church on the other hand is actually teach- 
ing true catholic doctrine: ‘‘Ecclesiae catholicae doc- 





See also Er. 25: 222-224; W. 50: 512-513; Er. 26:36; W. 51: 
519; Er. 59: 137; W. Tischreden 4: 179; Opp. Exeg. 1: 320 seq.; W. 
42: 187 seq.; 2: 242 seq.; W. 42: 334; 6: 116; W. 43: 387 seq.; Gal. 
2: 233 seq.; W. 40, Erste Abt.; 644 seq. 


180 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


trinam renovamus et illustramus.’’ (Corp. ref. III, col. 
313 seq.). In the Apology (Ch. 4) he uses the expression 
Catholic Church to describe a universality of believers, 
but in the Loci, ed 1535, in the Locus, De Ecclesia, he 
says: ‘‘Additur autem catholica, ut sit aliqua nota, 
significat enim consentientem de Evangelio quod per 
Apostolos traditum est. Et sic excludit haereses, et 
falsas opiniones de ceremontis, ne putemus ecclesiam 
alligatum esse certis locis et certis ceremonus humanis, 
sed vult nos sentire ecclesiam esse catholicam, hoc est, 
convenire de doctrina Evangeli etiamsi per totum orbem 
dispersa, dissimiles habet humanos ritus, etc.’’ 

Chemnitz also recognized the various significations of 
the word, distinguishing between its application: ‘‘1, 
ad locum; 2, ad tempus; 3, ad populos; 4, ad formam 
doctrinae.’’ Loct, III, pp. 124-125. 

Two statements of the Reformation period are spe- 
cially significant since each has a quasi-official character 
and thus they represent the opinion of the Church rather 
than of individuals. The first is the confessional sub- 
scription demanded of those ordained at Wittenberg in 
1535 and the following years. Among them we find time 
and again questions like the following: ‘‘Deinde prom- 
ittetis, quod velitis manere in puritate doctrinae, quam 
iam professt estis, et quam Dei beneficio sonant nostrae 
ecclestae et quae est doctrina ecclesiae catholicae con- 
sentiens cum doctrina prophetica et apostolica. Prom- 
mittetis igitur, quod velitis esse firmi et constantes et 
non aliud docere?’’ (Paul Drews, Die Ordination, Pri- 
fung und Lehrverpfichtung der Ordinanden in Witten- 
berg, 1535, Giessen, 1904, p. 50 seq.). 

Smiliar statements are found in the certificates given 
those who were promoted to the Master’s degree. For 
example: ‘‘comperimus ... et recte tenere summam 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 181 


pietatis christianae ac amplecti puram Evangelu sen- 
tentiam, quam Ecclesia nostra Wittembergensis uno 
spiritu et una voce cum catholica Ecclesia Christa 
profitetur, et abhorrere ab omnibus fanaticis opimonibus 
damnatis judico catholicae ecclesiae Christs.’’ Ibid, p. 26. 

The second is the declaration found in the Wittenberg 
Reformation, 1545. There is this statement: “‘In qua 
confessione (The Augustana) doctrinae Deo juvante 
perseverabimus, sicut illa dextre et sine depravatione 
intelligenda est, et in ecclesiis nostris intelligitur. Non 
enim dubitamus, illam doctrinam nostrarum ecclesiarum 
certo esse unicam, aeternam, consientientem doctrinam 
verae et Catholicae ecclesiae Christi, traditam per 
prophetas, Christum et apostolos, et congruentem cum 
symbolis apostolico et Nicaeno, et veteribus pus synodis, 
et sententia veteris et purtoris ecclesiae.’?’ (A. L. 
Richter, Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des sech- 
zgenten Jahrhunderts. II, p. 82). 


* The literature of the succeeding centuries shows how dear was 
the idea to Lutheran theologians that their Church is the Church 
Catholic. The Formula of Concord does not put forth the claim in 
so many words but the idea is certainly present when it calls the 
Augsburg Confession “the symbol of our time, whereby our Re- 
formed Churches are distinguished from the Papists and other 
repudiated and condemned sects and heresies.” The Catalogue of 
Testimonies, Gerhard’s Confessio Catholica and the Magdeburg 
Centuries were all written or collected to show that the teaching of 
the Lutheran Church is that of the Church Catholic. The dogmaticians 
assumed the same position. So Gerhard draws the conclusion from 
the Seventh Article of the Augsburg Confession that “Lutherana 
ecclesia est vera, sincere et orthodoxa ecclesia.” (Loci, Cotta ed. 
L. 22, 10, par 145) And later (par. 160) he discusses the question, 
“An ecclesia Lutheranorum sit catholica?” and answers it prac- 
tically in the affirmative. Hollazius (Hxamen Theol. Acro. Part 4, 
cap. 1, Quest. 37), devotes a whole page to proving that, as far as 
doctrine is concerned, “Ecclesia Christiana Augustanae Confessione 
addicta est vera et Catholicam.” And so we might go on with 
others. We find a literary feud being waged between Forer, who 
denies it, and Nicolai who affirms it, on the question “An Luther- 
anorum Ecclesia sit Catholica?” We find books with titles like 
these: Hessusen: “Unterschied zwischen der wahren katolischen 
Lehre der Kirche und den Irrtiimern der Papisten,’” 1564. Mathias 


182 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


There is no question about the fact that the Reform- 
ers believed themselves to be the true Church, the 
Church Catholic in the sense indicated. Did that mean 
that they denied the existence of real members of the 
Church in other ecclesiastical organizations, or in those 
bodies whose confessions and teachings were not wholly 
pure or perfectly Scriptural? They very clearly dis- 
tinguish between the individual Christian and the errors 
of the hierarchy under which he may be living. If the 
fundamentals of the faith and the means of grace are 
still there, then members of the Church are still to be 
found there, even though the official declarations of the 
body are not those of the Church Catholic and that title 
must be denied to its official doctrinal statements. The 
Apology clearly distinguishes between the people and 
the hierarchy (Ch. III, Art. 6), ‘‘Nor are we imme- 
diately to judge that the Roman Church agrees with 
everything that the popes or cardinals or bishops or 
some of the theologians or monks approve.’’ Similarly 
the Smalkald Articles find true Christians even under 
the Antichrist: ‘‘Neither are the Sacraments without 
efficacy for the reason that they are administered by 
wicked men? For Paul also predicts (II Thess. 2:4) 
that Antichrist will sit in the temple of God, 2. e., he 
will rule and bear office in the Church.’’ How com- 
pletely Luther was of this opinion can be seen more at 





Hoé von Hoénegg, “Evangelisches Handbiichlein darinen unwider- 
leglich aus einiger Heiligen Schrift erwiesen wird wie der genannten 
Lutherischen Glaube recht katolisch der Papstler Lehre aber im 
grunde irrig und wider das helle Wort Gottes sei.” 1603. In view 
of all these facts Loehe was certainly right when he said of the 
Lutheran fathers that they “Never dreamed that any one could 
charge them with having fallen away from the original, one, Catholic 
Church.—Over against this apostate (Roman) Church the Luth- 
erans then called themselves Catholic and Apostolic.” 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 183 


length in his commentary on Galatians (Hr. 1: 40 seq. W. 
40, Erste Abt. 688 seq.).’”” 

This was no inconsequence. The presence of true 
Christians in communions whose teaching is partly in 
error is to be explained by the same reason as the pres- 
ence of true Christians in a congregation whose pastor 
is unregenerate and an evil man. The grace is in the 
Word and Sacraments, not in the organization, and so 
the Ecclesia proprie dicta may exist in connection with 
an ecclesiastical body whose official teaching cannot 
claim to be faithful to that of the true Catholic Church. 


THE CHURCH IS APOSTOLIC 


The Apostles were conscious of the fact that they were 
the bearers of a special revelation from God, as they 
were to give Christ’s teaching to the world and were 
guided by the Holy Ghost in its understanding. Ac- 
cordingly they demanded recognition of the divine 
authority of their teaching (Eph. 3:5; II Thess. 2:15; IT 
Peter 3:2; Jude 17). Timothy is especially admonished 
to continue in the apostolic teaching (II Tim. 1:13; 
3:14), while both Paul and John speak of the Church 
as founded on the Apostles (Eph. 3:20; Rev. 21:14). 


* Another interesting statement of Luther’s along the same lines 
is found in the little treatise “Von der Wiedertaufe, an zwei Pfarr- 
hernn, 1528. This pass age throws a sidelight on the reason for 
Luther’s conservatism in the work of the Reformation. “Christus 
fand auch in jiidischen Volk der Pharis&er und Schriftgelehrten 
Missbrauch: aber er verwarfs darumb nit alles, was sie hatten und 
lehrten, Matth. 23:3. Wir bekennen aber, dass unter dem papst- 
thumb viel christliches Guts, ja alles christlich Gut sei, und auch 
daselbs herkummen sei an uns: Namlich wir bekennen, dass im 
Papstthum die recht heilig Schrift sei, rechte Tauf, recht Sacra- 
ment des Altars rechte Schliissel zur Vergebung der Sund, recht 
Predigtampt, rechter Katechismus, als zehen Gebot, die Artikel des 
Glaubens, das Vater Unser. ... Ich sag, dass unter dem Papst die 
recht Christenheit ist, ja der recht Ausbund der Christenheit, und 
viel frummer grosser Heiligen.” (Er. 26: 257-258. W. 26: 147). 


184 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


That is another way of insisting on the historic char- 
acter of the Church, which is established on historic 
facts, attested by special witnesses, who have been called 
for that purpose and who are especially endowed to un- 
derstand and interpret these facts. The Church not 
grounded on the Apostles and their testimony is a pure 
fiction. 

If the Church then is to be the continuation of the 
mission of Christ it must also be a continuation of the 
work of the Apostles, who witnessed and interpreted the 
Revelation made by Jesus Christ. So the Church con- 
tinues to impart the revelation of God, but not by in- 
creasing or amplifying it. If she attempted to do so 
she would cease to be truly apostolic. The original rev- 
elation was not given by the Church but to the Church, 
through individuals selected by God. The Church in- 
deed becomes a witness to the truthfulness of the rec- 
ords and to the authenticity of what has been trans- 
mitted in the Scriptures, and she is charged with their 
publication, but is not their author nor is she called 
upon to amplify them. Not the production of revela- 
tion but its publication is the Church’s work. Though 
the understanding of this revelation must grow with 
the experience of the centuries, the revelation itself is 
apostolic—an historic finality. 

In passing it may be of interest to note the unapostolic 
and unhistoric character of Rome. The individuals by 
whom revelation has been imparted were always se- 
lected directly by God, never, like a pope, by the Church. 
On the other hand, the same Divine Spirit, who moved 
holy men of old, still guides the Church in the recog- 
nition, understanding the teaching of revelation, in its 
defense and in its preservation as in the determination 
of the Canon of Scripture and in the formulation of the 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 185 


scriptural confessions. But this work belongs to the 
Church and not to individuals, even when certain in- 
dividuals are the moving factors, they never operate 
alone. No individual framed the Canon, nor promul- 
gated a Creed on his own authority. So the fiction of 
an infallible papacy only serves to demonstrate afresh 
the unhistoric character of the system of which it is a 
part. By its self-exultation the papacy has ceased to be 
apostolic. 

The apostolic foundation of the Church was a revela- 
tion given through certain persons but through them 
was given to all and became the common property of 
the whole Church. First given personally it became 
universal. Now it is the mission of the Church to bring 
to each individual this common possession. The univer- 
sal truth, by the ministration of the Church, again be- 
comes a personal gift to each individual. This indiv- 
idualizing of the Gospel is furthermore particularly the 
work of certain individuals, who represent the Church 
in that work. 


IV. WHAT 1S THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH? 
THERE IS A DIVINELY INSTITUTED OFFICE OF THE MINISTRY 


No particular hierarchy is anywhere enjoined for the 
Church, nor is any form of government prescribed. Of 
a mediatorial priesthood there is no hint. There is only 
the distinction between teachers and those taught, which 
appears as an extension of the work of the original 
apostolate. 

That extension is apparent in the New Testament. 
While the original Twelve remain the bearers of a 
unique commission that is only shared, as a result of the 
special vision given him, by Paul, and while in this 


186 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


they can have no_ successors, there are others 
mentioned as associated with them in the work of teach- 
ing, preaching, guiding and ruling the Church. They 
expressly provide for others who are to discharge such 
functions locally and stipulate the qualifications they 
must possess, and they speak of themselves as being 
such presbyters (I Peter 5:1, 2; II John 1; II John 1). 
The only difference is that the future ministry is for- 
ever bound to a complete dependence on the testimony 
of the Twelve, who were personally connected with the 
life of Christ, and on their interpretation of His mis- 
sion. So the ministry remains as the final theme in the 
discussion of the doctrine of the Church. 
Unfortunately this is a subject that has been the oc- 
casion for endless controversies, and in its wrong de- 
velopment the foundation for countless errors. Here 
again it is necessary to relate the particular doctrine 
under consideration to the entire body of the Christian 
faith. A doctrine may be quite correctly stated, as far 
as it is considered, and still be nullified or distorted by 
false teaching on some other point, and no doctrine will 
be fully understood or grasped in the proper perspec- 
tive unless it is held in connection with the great ma- 
terial principle of Christianity; justification by faith. 
Throughout the Middle Ages, for example, there were 
many movements and many teachers who held the For- 
mal Principle of the Reformation, and taught that the 
Scriptures were the sole rule of faith, but still most 
of these Biblicists remained faithful to the Roman 
Church, and effected no real reformation, because they 
did not fully grasp the doctrine of free grace and justifi- 
cation by faith alone, or else misunderstood the char- 
acter of the Scriptures. Frequently they esteemed them 
still as a nova lex, and a law, whether spiritual or civil, 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 187 


demands a police department for its enforcement.” And 
what is the Roman hierarchy with its claim of a 
potestas jurisdictionis but a gigantic system of spiritual 
police! 

The desire to escape such an hierarchical system has 
sometimes led to an opposite extreme and resulted in 
a degradation of the dignity of the holy office of the 
ministry or even led to a denial of its divine institution. 
Those who are most insistant in always seeing the bogy 
of a priesthood continually forget that neither a 
mediatorial priesthood nor a judicial hierarchy can ex- 
ist where the doctrine of justification is clearly taught. 
As soon as that doctrine is obscured and systems of 
human meritoriousness take its place a hierarchial sys- 
tem of some sort or other is likely to put in its appear- 
ance. 

About one thing we must be in the clear. The min- 
istry is a divine institution and not a mere human de- 
velopment out of the spiritual priesthood of all 
believers. Neither in the Scriptures nor in the Confes- 
sions is there any ‘‘Ubertragungslehre.’’ If the mod- 
ern conceptions of such transference could be traced 
to their real sources it might be found that men had 
been unconsciously applying to the Church certain 
political theories, and that some of these theories are 
more akin to Rousseau than to Luther. 

Luther indeed is often claimed for such theories but 
that is only possible by quoting some of his earlier state- 
ments without balancing them by those made later in 





* Even Wiclif regarded the Scriptures in this light for he says: 
“Tex Christi pure per se sufficit regere totum populum christianum” 
(De civili dominio, I, 395) For a wider discussion of this whole 
question and the proof of the statements made above see, Friedrich 
Kropatscheck, Das Schriftprinzip der luthersichen Kirche, Leipsic, 
1904 


188 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


life. Luther’s habit of stating certain truths in their 
most extreme form on one occasion and then correcting 
possible misunderstandings at another time, often after 
his original statements had been misused by fanatics, 
is too well known to require any demonstration. It was 
particularly evident in many statements he made con- 
cerning the ministry. His first interest was to combat 
a false sacerdotalism and in so doing he pressed certain 
statements of Scripture to ‘the most extreme conse- 
quences, without, however, intending to deny the other 
side of the question, in fact taking the other side for 
granted. Then, when he found his position misused by 
fanatics he supplied the necessary safeguards against 
their abuses. 

Luther fully understood the importance of the office 
of the ministry and regarded it as an essential part of 
God’s order in the Church. We can best state his posi- 
tion in the words of Kostlin: ‘‘Hven the individual 
bearers of the office, though they have been directly 
called by men nevertheless are still to be regarded as 
‘Teachers whom God Himself has called, ordained and 
consecrated.’ (Er. 31: 219; W. 30, Dritte, Abt. 521). A 
congregation cannot be conceived of as existing with- 
out the pastoral office, since without this office there 
could be no general guidance or public preaching. As 
the souls of all Christians are only nourished by the 
Word of the Gospel and thus are kept in union with 
the divine Head of the Church, so the individual con- 
gregations can only endure as they join themselves to 
a preacher who publicly preaches the Word to them. 
On one occasion (Hr. 31:123; W. 30, Zweite Abt. 425) 
Luther expressly defines the ‘Christian Church’ as ‘the 
number or company of the baptized and of believers, 
who belong to a pastor or bishop, whether of one city, 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 189 


or a whole territory or the whole word.’’’ (Luther’s 
Lehre von der Kirche, pp. 74-75)." The statements of 
the Wittenberg Reformation, 1545, undoubtedly repre- 
sent the mature views of Luther as well as Mel- 
anchthon’s. There we read: ‘‘Hanc vocem Christus per 
sese et suos ministros perpetuo sonabit nec opprim 
sinet. 

“‘Haec primum dicta sint de ministerio evangelico, ut 
omnes intelligant, nos confitert, sicut haec est aeterna 
et immota veritas: ministerium Evangelu et sacramen- 
torum necessarium esse et ecclesiam ad hoc alligatam 
esse, nec esse populum Dei aut electos usquam nisi in 
coetu vocatorum, ubi sonat vox Evangelu et admin- 
istrantur sacramenta.’’ (Richter, Kirchenordnungen, 
II, p. 88 b). 


THE MINISTRY OF THE WORD AND THE SPIRITUAL PRIESTHOOD 
OF ALL BELIEVERS ARE NOT THE SAME 


Does the office of the ministry destroy the significance 
of the spiritual priesthood of all believers, or is it a 
mere variation of the priesthood? Neither one, for they 
are two things. All Christians are priests before God 
and they do not require a mediatorial priesthood to in- 
tervene between them and God. There is no character 
indelibilis imparted to the ministry that is transmitted 
from one member of the order to another or that is 
necessary for the efficacy of Word and Sacraments. All 
Christians can exercise their sacrificial functions in 
bringing to God their spiritual sacrifices, all men can 
gain His forgiveness directly, all can minister sac- 


* See further how Luther guards against possible misunderstand- 
ings of his earlier statements in Von den Councilis und Kirchen 
(Er. 25: 364; W. 50: 633 seq.) and Von den Schleichern und Winkel- 
predigern (Er. 31: 200; W. 30: Dritte Abt. 522). 


190 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


ramentally to their fellow men in private, if necessity 
arises, for the commission to evangelize and baptize, as 
well as the power of the keys has been given to the 
whole Church. But from all this it does not follow 
that there is no public office of the ministry in the 
Church, founded by Jesus Christ, for the public and 
regular ministration of the means of grace, and for the 
leading and guiding of the Church, any more than it fol- 
in this country that because political authority resides 
in the whole people there are therefore no legislators, 
judges or executives, but that each citizen could assume 
such functions for himself, whenever he was so minded. 
The very fact that any right or grace belongs to all 
means that it is not the unrestricted possession of each 
one. Just because it belongs to all it must be admin- 
istered by those who have been appointed to officiate 
for the corporate body, whether that be the State or 
the Church. Perhaps no texts have been so abused 
and misused as the few relating to the spiritual priest- 
hood of ‘believers, except the one that says ‘‘Twu es 
Petrus,’’ which has been equally misapplied by those 
who run to the opposite extreme. There is no sacrificial 
priestly order in the Church, but there is a divinely 
instituted office jof the Word and Sacraments. The 
grace it ministers does not reside in the office bearers, 
neither does it spring from the unwersal priesthood of 
believers. Itis a gift given to the whole Church and its 
eficacy comes from the Holy Ghost, working through 
the Word and Sacraments, not from an order of priest- 
hood nor from a universality of priesthood. All Chris- 
tians can indeed minister that grace efficiently but not 
all can do so lawfully under all circumstances. For its 
ordinary ministration God has provided an office, and 
to that office all Christians are ordinarily bound. The 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 191 


spiritual priesthood has chiefly to do with the private 
and individual business of the soul, the ministry with 
the public and common possessions of the Church, even 
when they are administered individually. This is the 
reason for the seeming inconsistency in the difference 
always made between Baptism and the Sacrament of 
the Altar. The first is not only more essential to sal- 
vation but it is in every way individual in its immediate 
application. The Sacrament of the Altar, on the other 
hand, is a congregational participation in Christ, it is 
a common meal, even when administered privately to 
the sick, and therefore is always to be administered by 
the one who as Christ’s representative is the minister 
to and for the whole Church.” 


THERE ARE NO SPECIAL GRADES IN THE MINISTRY 


With the elimination of any thought of a sacerdotal 
ministry, the question of grades in the ministry becomes 


* Once again we will simply summarize the position of Luther in 
the words of Kostlin: “As zealously as Luther claimed the priestly 
character for all Christians, just as strictly he limits the exercise 
of the priestly office. Undeniably the pre-eminent position in dis- 
tinction to the laity which the office of the ministry attained in the 
Lutheran Church is connected with Luther’s own declarations. 
(Luther’s Lehre Von der Kirche, p. 66). 

“Just in the epistle to the council of Prague, in which he develops 
the activities of the spiritual priesthood in such detail, and where 
he deduces such important practical consequences, he does not ad- 
vise the Bohemians to celebrate the Holy Communion in their own 
houses, because pastors were denied them, but advises them to omit 
it entirely. They could still share in salvation and each head of a 
household could read the Gospel and baptize in his own family: 
Quando id laicis permittit etiam totius orbis consensus et uses. In 
the same way Luther expresses himself in the previously noticed 
letter of 1530 (de Wette V, 39) in the matter of the Linzer Pro- 
testants, where he says ‘That a housefather should teach his family 
God’s Word is right and proper, and the Word has been committed 
to each one.’ But the Communion, a public transaction, he might 
not undertake, ‘because he has not been called nor commissioned to 
do so.’ If the regular ministry tyranically deny it to him he can 
still be saved without it, through the Word.” (Ibid, pp. 67-68). 


192 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


relatively unimportant The New Testament knows of 
only one office of Word and Sacraments. The elders 
and bishops are the same persons. For human conven- 
ience or greater efficiency there may be gradations of 
authority. In the administration of the affairs of the 
Church various details and differing degrees of over- 
sight may be delegated to various individuals or re- 
stricted to particular offices but the ministry of the Word 
and Sacraments remains the same for the least as well 
as the greatest. There is no more distinction than there 
was between the positions of the original Twelve.” 


THE CHARACTER OF THE MINISTRY 


So the ministry is the office established for the public 
administration of the means of grace, and, as such, those 
in that office are the commissioned representatives of 
Christ. What they bring is not an inherent virtue given 
them, nor the mysterious functions of some imparted 
character, but it consists in the ministration to the in- 
dividual members of the Church of the gifts of grace 
Christ has given the whole Church. It is the authorita- 
tive transmission of the grace of Christ’s mission, His 
forgiveness and strength and comfort being brought 
to the individual Christian. It is the office established 
to convey to him the means by which the Holy Ghost 
touches his soul. As the twelve ministered to the five 
thousand what Christ alone could provide, so the 
ministry brings men His gifts. They are His chosen 
ambassadors to convey the gifts of the Holy Ghost, to 
mediate to men, by their humble ministrations, His 





* Hardly any scholar will pretend to find the so-called three orders 
of the clergy in the New Testament. See, e. g. Kostlin, Das Wesen 
der Kirche, 2d ed. p. 105 seq. and Bishop Lightfoot’s Commentary 
on the Ep. to the Phil. pp. 95-99. 


THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST 193 


eternal mediatorial work. Their voice is God’s voice. 
Their work is God’s work. They are the leaders, the 
guides and the spokesmen in the Church, which is the 
living continuation of the mission of Christ. 

John Calvin once said: ‘‘No observation therefore 
can be more correct than this, that the law is a silent 
magistrate and the magistrate a speaking law’’ (Jn- 
stitutes Bk. IV, Ch. XX, Sec. XIV). We might borrow 
the phrase and, mutatis mutandis, say, The Gospel is 
a silent ministry and the ministry a speaking Gospel. 


THE INTRODUCTION INTO THE OFFICE OF THE MINISTRY 


While it is not possible to prove that ordination is of 
divine appointment, it is a necessary consequence of 
the official position of the ministry as the leaders and 
teachers of the congregations, and as the representa- 
tives of the congregations to each other, as well as being 
the representative of God to the congregations, that 
under all ordinary circumstances they should be the 
ones to order the admission of candidates to the min- 
istry, and by their authority give them a part in the 
same office. As the congregation is incomplete without 
its ministry and the minister a mere name unless pro- 
vided with a field of ministration so the two go together 
to constitute a normal congregation. So the ministry 
and people, the whole congregation and the ministry 
representing the universal Church, as well as the local 
congregation, should have part in providing for the 
continuation of the holy office. New Testament usage 
clearly indicates, so far as the subject is mentioned, 
that the call ordinarily came from the people and then 
was confirmed by the laying on of the hands of the 
presbytery, except that in the missionary stages of the 


194 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


Church’s existence, the ministry frequently on their own 
authority ordained the elders in various cities. Never, 
however, do we find men entering the ministry without 
some commission from those already in that office.” 

The apostolic succession of special rights and powers, 
inhering in certain persons is a pure fiction, for the 
true apostolic succession is not a succession of persons, 
like the line of succession in a royal family, but it is 
the continuation of the divinely instituted office of the 
ministry. Just as judges in our commonwealths may 
be sworn into office by other judges, though elected by 
the people, and this does not constitute a personal suc- 
cession of the judgeship, so ordination to the Holy Min- 
istry is not the transmission of a personal charism but 
it is the proper official commission of the Church, given 
by the chosen officials of the Church, who have received 
their election from the people, but their authority from 
God. 


i. For a detailed account of the position of the Reformers concern- 
ing ordination see Georg Rietschel, Luther und die Ordination, Wit- 
Rpeeres 1883, and the treatise of Drews (Die Lehrverpflichtung) 
cited above. 


THE AUTHORITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 
IN THE EARLY CHURCH 


Cuarutes M. Jacoss 


There are few subjects that are more deeply involved 
in the religious discussions of the present day than is 
the authority of Holy Scripture. It matters little in 
what field the discussion may arise, whether in the 
dogmatical or the ethical, the apologetic or the prac- 
tical, it is bound, sooner or later, to touch upon this 
theme. It may be a discussion of the limits of non- 
resistance or of the Christian idea of God, but at some 
time in its course the question is certain to arise, ‘‘ What 
value is to be attached to the utterances of the Bible 
on this subject? Are they to be regarded as author- 
itative? If so, are there any limits to that authority, 
and if there are limits, where are they to be placed? 
What is the source of that authority and how is it to be 
determined ?’’ 

It is not the purpose of this study to answer these 
questions. The determination of the extent and the 
nature of the authority which the Holy Scriptures 
possess may be left to the systematic theologian. The 
present writer’s task is simpler. It is merely to dis- 
cuss, in a brief historical sketch, the views that were 
held in the earliest days of the Church concerning the 
authority of the Scriptures, and to trace, so far as may 
be possible within the limits of such a study, the 
sources of these views... We shall find these sources 
to have been psychological rather than historical or 

195 


196 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


metaphysical. Indeed the whole problem of the author- 
ity of Scripture presents itself to the historical mind 
as a problem in Christian psychology. For the doctrine 
of Holy Scripture, however, fundamental it may ‘be 
to theology, has never been primary to faith, and the 
particular view of the Scriptures which any man holds 
has always been a result of faith before it becomes a 
cause of faith. 


1. Tor Source or TrutH AccorDING TO THE NEw 
TESTAMENT 


The truth which the New Testament declares is re- 
garded by its writers as divine truth. With but few 
exceptions, we find them making no claim to direct in- 
spiration. Indeed, the term ‘‘inspiration’’ is found but 
once in the New Testament, and in that one case it is 
possibly a mistaken Latin translation of a Greek word 
that had another meaning.’ Paul’ and John’ do indeed 
claim to have received messages directly from God, 
or from Christ, but they do not speak on that ac- 
count, with any higher authority than do the writers 
of I Peter or of Hebrews. The fact is that all of the New 
Testament writers are certain that it is God’s truth 
which they are setting down, and they expect their 
readers to accept it as such. It comes from God and is, 
in some sense, His revelation. God is its ultimate 
source. 

But this truth, of which God is the source, comes to 
men through three channels. The channel through 
which it comes does not give it its divine character. 
That belongs to it because it originates with God. The 





*II Tim. 3:16. Cf. Cremer, in Realencyk,* ix, 184. 
* As for example in I Cor. 7. Compare vv. 25 and 40. 
* Revelation, passim. 


HOLY SCRIPTURES IN THE EARLY CHURCH 197 


truth that comes through one channel is no more divine 
than that which comes through either of the others. 
Nevertheless, the channels are different. 

The first of these channels is Jesus Himself. His 
utterances are regarded as containing divine truth in 
the highest degree and the fullest measure. This es- 
timate upon them was a necessary consequence of the es- 
timate which the disciples placed upon Jesus.‘ ‘‘God 
hath spoken unto us in His own Son’’ (Heb. 1:2) is 
the fact which the author of Hebrews assumes as a 
common-place of Christian faith. The Johannine lit- 
erature uses ‘‘ Word of God’’ as a designation for Jesus. 
While the term is of philosophical origin and contains 
metaphysical implications, its use rests on the con- 
viction that in Jesus there has been direct communica- 
tion between God and the world. 

How early the sayings of Jesus may have been re- 
duced to writing and just when the written sayings 
began to be gathered into collections of logia, it is im- 
possible to say; but it is altogether certain that such 
collections were made at a very early date and that one 
or more of them lie at the basis of our synoptic nar- 
ratives. These sayings possessed from the beginning 
a unique authority. Jesus claimed that authority for 
them. ‘‘Ye have heard that it was said to them of old 
LPLTee eg but I say unto you’’ (Matt. 5:21 f., 27 f., 
33 f., 28 f., 43 f.) is such a claim. It declares that 
Jesus’ words supersede all other interpretations of the 
decalogue. This claim reaches its pinnacle in words of 
Jesus, recorded by John, such words as ‘‘I am the 





“The most recent study of this estimate, by A. C. McGiffert, The 
God of the Early Christians (1924), contains many statements from 
which the present writer dissents, but is interesting as a presenta- 
tion by a liberal theologian of the arguments for the belief of the 
first Christians in the complete deity of Jesus. 


198 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


Truth’? (John 14:6). Moreover, the authority which 
Jesus thus claimed for His words was acknowledged by 
His disciples. The words with which the Epistle to the 
Hebrews open place the authority of Jesus’ sayings 
above the highest authority that has been known before, 
‘God, who in divers parts and in divers ways, spake 
in times past by the prophets unto the fathers, hath in 
these last days spoken unto us by His own Son’’ (Heb. 
1:1, 2). Similarly, the introduction to the Fourth 
Gospel ascribes to Him, and by implication to His say- 
ings, supreme authority,—‘‘No man hath seen God at 
any time, the Only-begotten Son—hath declared Him’’ 
(John 1:18). 

It is to be remembered, however, that the authority 
thus claimed for Jesus’ words is only one aspect of the 
authority that belongs to Jesus as the Son of God. It 
does not rest upon any theory of the inspiration of the 
record. When John writes: ‘‘That which was from the 
beginning, that which we have seen with our eyes, that 
which we have heard, that we beheld and our hands 
handled, concerning the Word of life... . that declare 
we unto you’’ (I John 1:1, 3), he does indeed distinguish 
between the revelation, which is Jesus, and the record, 
or transmission, of that revelation, which, in this case, 
is the words of John himself. But the truth which is 
to be communicated is the truth that is in Jesus; that is 
to say, it is the divine truth of which Jesus is the em- 
bodiment, and therefore the channel. Whatever can be 
credibly established as a word of Jesus, that is to be 
received by Christians as the truth. This kind of recep- 
tion given to the words of Jesus is, of course, a con- 
sequence of faith in Christ. 

The second channel through which the divine truth 
comes to men is the Old Testament. Jesus expressly 


HOLY SCRIPTURES IN THE EARLY CHURCH 199 


recognized it as a source of knowledge and constantly 
appealed to its authority as a revelation of the mind 
and will of God.’ The care which He took to fulfil with 
literal exactness such Messianic prophecies as that of 
Zech. 9:9 (cf. Matt. 21:1 ff.) is only one aspect of this 
appeal to the Old Testament Scriptures.” In this 
valuation of the Old Testament He only concurred in 
a conviction which the whole Jewish people shared. It 
was, therefore, not directly from Jesus, but from a 
Jewish tradition, accepted by Him and supported by 
His authority, that the New Testament writers derived 
their view of the authority of the Old Testament. Mat- 
thew sets his picture of Jesus, the Messiah and the 
Founder of the Kingdom of God, in a framework of 
Old Testament prophecy. The other New Testament 
writers use Old Testament quotations and allusions con- 
tinually. The missionary-preaching of the earliest 
days, as shown by the sermons in the Acts,’ was based 
upon Old Testament prophecy. Even for Gentiles, the 
Old Testament is ‘‘the Scriptures’’ and a word quoted 
from the Old Testament is ‘‘a scripture.’’ 

To be sure, the New Testament writers are conscious 
that they possess more than this one source of truth. 
The truth which has come to them through one or both 
of the other channels that God has used modifies their 
view of the Old Testament. It is for them, as it was 
for Jesus, primarily a book of prophecy, pointing for- 
ward to the completion that has now come. The whole 
Epistle to the Hebrews is a plea to Jews for the re- 
ception of this new source of truth. Both Paul and the 





*The passages are too numerous to cite here, but note especially 
Matt. 5:17 ff. 

*See the particularly fine passage on Jesus’ attitude toward the 
Old Testament in Feine Die Religion d. N. T. (1921), pp. 27 ff. 

SActs 3:18, 22 ff.; 10: 43; 19: 28. 8:80 ff.; 18: 27, 83 ff. 


200 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


writer of Hebrews have to show that Christianity is 
a new religion. It is not a reformed Judaism. But 
both of them contend that in accepting the new, men 
are discarding no really valuable elements of the old. 
They can afford to throw away the chaff, if they have 
the wheat. In a word, the connection between Judaism 
and Christianity is historical. The one is the his- 
torical antecedent of the other. In every historical pro- 
cess, the consequent phenomenon is vitally related to 
the antecedent. The two are organically connected, and 
the bonds which unite them cannot be severed without 
destroying the very thing which it is desired to pre- 
serve. It might be argued that having the new, we no 
longer need the old. That argument was afterwards 
advanced by the Gnostics and by Marcion, but they suc- 
ceeded only in producing travesties upon Christianity. 
In a different, and even more extreme form, it was ad- 
vanced by Mohammed when he claimed that the Koran 
superseded both the Jewish and the Christian Scrip- 
tures. The view of the New Testament writers is that, 
having the new, we have the old, deepened, enriched, 
extended and completed, and therefore more worthy 
of acceptance than ever. Because they regard it in this 
way, they can continue to accept the Old Testament as 
a source of truth. 

It should not be forgotten, however, that the attitude 
of the New Testament writers toward the authority of 
the Old Testament differs in one very important respect 
from their attitude toward the authority of Jesus. The 
authority of Jesus resided in a living personality; the 
authority of the Old Testament was resident in written 
records. These records did, in certain cases, claim for 
themselves immediate divine origin. Jahweh Himself, 
or the Spirit of Jahweh has told the authors what to 


HOLY SCRIPTURES IN THE EARLY CHURCH 201 


write, and they are merely setting down what they have 
heard from Him. In other cases the message of Jahweh 
has been delivered orally and then recorded by others 
than the man who received it. But there are large 
areas of the Old Testament which do not make any such 
claim for themselves. Such areas are, for example, the 
historical books and the Psalter. Now, however, the 
ascription of divine origin is widened to include the 
whole Old Testament Canon. This enlargement had 
already taken place in Israel, and Christianity simply 
took the idea over from cotemporary Judaism. The 
principle is established that ‘‘No prophecy ever came 
by the will of man, but men spake from God, as they 
were moved by the Holy Ghost’’ (II Pet. 1:20). The 
use of the Old Testament by Jesus, by the Evangelists, 
by Paul and by the author of Hebrews shows that this 
principle was broadly interpreted to cover the Law and 
the Psalter, as well as the prophets. The whole body 
of the Old Testament Canon was regarded as coming 
from God. 

The third channel through which the truth of God 
comes to men is the Holy Spirit. It is, perhaps, truer 
to say that it is individuals upon whom God bestows 
the gift of truth, and this bestowal is the work of the 
Holy Spirit. The disciples had the word of Jesus, 
‘“When the Spirit of truth is come. . . He will lead you 
into all the truth’’ (John 16:13) and they believed that, 
from Pentecost on, that promise was going into fulfil- 
ment. Doubtless the conviction of immediate inspira- 
tion was more vivid in some congregations than in 
others. It apparently reached its maximum intensity 
at Corinth, but that it was wide-spread admits of no 
doubt. Indeed Paul seems to lay it down as a principle 
that no Christian is without some direct endowment of 


202 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


the Spirit, and includes among the gifts ‘‘the word of 
wisdom’’ and the ‘‘word of knowledge.’” It is such 
gifts that make some men apostles and others prophets. 
Paul has himself received ‘‘revelations of the Lord,’’ 
but he does not think of those revelations as giving him 
a unique position among his fellow-Christians, for he 
implies that others, too, have had the same kind of 
revelations. Thus Paul thinks of the Church as con- 
taining men to whom the truth is coming directly from 
God. There is not the remotest suggestion that the 
authority of this truth is of any lower order than the 
authority of the Old Testament. There is, therefore, a 
living authority which is daily adding to the store of 
divine truth that men possess. That is the kind of 
authority which is clearly and distinctly claimed for 
the Book of Revelation (Rev. 22:18 f.). The solemn 
warning against adding to or subtracting from the con- 
tents of the book may point to a date when this kind of 
authority was losing its general hold upon the mind of 
the Church. 

But in spite of the numbers of the Spirit-endowed 
teachers, there remained a small number of individuals 
whose utterances had especial weight. They were the 
founders of churches, the ‘‘apostles’’ in the broad sense, 
and among them especially the Twelve. There is no 
intimation that the Twelve were regarded as ‘‘in- 
spired’’ in any exclusive sense. Indeed, Paul’s whole 
argument for his own apostleship” speaks against any 
such view. On the other hand, they were the men who 
had proved the authenticity of their Gospel by the fruits 
it had borne, and who had had unusual human oppor- 





*I Cor. 12-14, esp. 12: 8, 28, 29. Cf. Eph. 4: 7-11. 
*II Cor. 12:1 ff. Cf. I Cor. 2:10; Eph. 8:5. 
* II Cor. 11-12. 


HOLY SCRIPTURES IN THE EARLY CHURCH 2038 


tunities to know the facts of the life of Jesus, and were 
therefore especially competent witnesses. Out of this 
circle, there had emanated before the middle of the first 
century, a well-defined tradition, to which Paul more 
than once appealed.” The content of that tradition was 
apparently the main facts about the life of Jesus, es- 
pecially His death and resurrection, together with cer- 
tain fundamental ethical teachings. This tradition, in 
written form, was doubtless the germ of our Gospels. 
Its importance for the subject of our study lies in the 
fact that it was something fixed and definite, not to be 
contradicted or disturbed by the utterances of the in- 
spired prophets and teachers. It provided a point 
around which the still fluid teaching of the Church could 
erystalize. 

It was thus, then that the New Testament writers 
thought of the transmission of truth. It came from 
God, through the Old Testament, through Jesus and 
through the disciples of Jesus who had received ‘‘the 
gift.’? Whatever ‘‘theory of inspiration’? there may 
have been was applied only to the Old Testament, for, 
in the first place, there was no body of Christian writ- 
ings which possessed unique authority, and, in the sec- 
ond place, ‘‘inspiration’’ was a common thing. 


IJ. THe Post-Apostrontic Ace (ce. 100-c. 165) 


The men who live through a transition from one per- 
iod of history to another are seldom conscious of any 
great change. There is no definite time when the old 
ends and the new begins, but the old merges insensibly 
into the new. Indeed, the new in history is most often 
only the development of some one element which the old 





si Cor, 11: 25 tl Thess, 22155826: Cfo I Cor. 15238, 


204 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


has all along contained, and newness is usually nothing 
more than a change of emphasis. When we pass out 
of the apostolic into the post-apostolic age, then, we 
must expect to find men thinking pretty much as they 
did a generation or two before, or, at least, to find that 
the elements of their thinking are the same. They still 
have their three-fold source of truth, but the emphasis 
upon the different channels of truth is beginning to 
shift. 

The thought of immediate inspiration as a source of 
truth is beginning to slip into the background. The 
consciousness that the Spirit is in all Christians is less 
vivid than in earlier days. To be sure, it has not dis- 
appeared. It is still believed that individuals here and 
there possess the gifts of prophet and apostle,” but 
these individuals are more rare than formerly. The 
Book of Revelation stands almost on the boundary line 
that separates the first from the second century.” It is 
the book which, of the whole New Testament, makes 
the most outspoken claim to inspiration in the full char- 
ismatic sense. Its author sets down nothing that is 
his own; he only writes that which he has seen and 
heard in the Spirit’s world, remote from the world of 
sense. Just this side of the same boundary line, well in 
the second century, we find another book that claims 
the same kind of authorship. The Shepherd of Hermas 
was written at some time, perhaps at intervals, before 
140 A. D. It is a book of visions, and its writer was a 
Roman ‘‘prophet.’’ The truth of its contents is sup- 
ported by the fact that he has seen and heard the things 
that he records, and has been instructed in their mean- 





“Cf. Didache, xi, 3 ff. 
“It was written no earlier than the persecution under Domitian, 
95-96 A. D. 


HOLY SCRIPTURES IN THE EARLY CHURCH 205 


ing by a visitor from on high. It is a dreary book, 
deriving all its interest from the double fact that it was 
written when it was and that its utterances may be 
typical of the sermons of the charismatic ‘‘prophets.’’ 
And yet, despite its deariness, its spiritual poverty, its 
legalistic view of religion, its involved allegories and 
far-fetched interpretations of them, the men of Hermas’ 
own generation prized it highly, and it was read in many 
churches as Holy Scripture.“ Thus they testified to 
their belief that the writing of Holy Scripture was not 
finished so long as there were living men to whom and 
through whom the Holy Spirit spoke. 

Just at the time, too, when Hermas’ work was enjoy- 
ing its greatest popularity, there arose on the Hastern 
border of the Roman Empire a new religious movement 
within the Christian Church. Montanism was _ ulti- 
mately branded as heresy and the Montanists became a 
sect. As a sect, it was wide-spread; there are traces 
of its existence from Phrygia to Gaul. But in Mon- 
tanism there was nothing new. In Corinth or Ephesus 
at the time of Paul most of the Montanistic doctrines 
would have had a familiar sound. They emphasized 
the notion of charismatic inspiration as a source of 
truth, to the exclusion, or at least to the disadvantage, 
of other sources. Their special doctrines rested en- 
tirely on the idea that this charismatic inspiration was 
still existent in the Church. Montanus claimed that he 
was speaking ‘‘as the Spirit gave him utterance,’’ and 
the same claim was made by his prophetesses, Prisca 
and Maximilla. The words that these prophets uttered 
would seem to have been written down, and circulated 





“This use of The Shepherd continued well into the third century. 
Cf. Zahn, Geschichte d. N. T. Kanons, I, 327 ff. 


206 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


as Holy Scripture.” The burden of the message which 
the Montanists proclaimed would not have fallen 
strangely upon the ears of first-century Christians. It 
was a simple message,—‘‘ The end is near! In prepara- 
tion for it, the flesh must be denied; the world must be 
shunned; there can be no compromise with it!’’ All of 
these were old ideas, and it is not suprising that Mon- 
tanism should have made many converts. It was ‘‘the 
old-time religion,’’ not indeed of Paul, but of many of 
Paul’s cotemporaries, and it claimed an authority to 
which Christians were accustomed to give heed, the 
authority of the Holy Spirit, speaking through the lips 
of living men. But Montanism was condemned, and 
the fact that it was condemned is proof that the idea 
of immediate inspiration as a source of truth had lost, 
or was losing, its hold upon the fourth and fifth and 
sixth generations of Christians. In its place there was 
arising another theory of inspiration, which we shall 
examine later. 

But the Christians of this period also had the Old 
Testament. All of the second century writers, except 
the heretics, agree in maintaining that the Old Testa- 
ment Scriptures belong to the Christians. They have 
inherited from Paul the idea that the Christians are 
the people of God,” the true Israel. Clement of Rome, 
writing about 96 A. D., can speak of ‘‘the merciful 
Father, Who hath made us the portion of choice for 
Himself.’’” Barnabas declares that ‘‘the Lord Himself 
gave the covenant to us, as the people of the inherit- 





The best study of Montanism is still Bonwetsch, Gesch. d. M. 
(1889). On the Montanistic “Scriptures,” see Zahn, op. Cit., 1, mae 

% This idea had found classical expression in Gal. 3 and 4. “They 
that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7). 

*T Clem. 29: 31. 


HOLY SCRIPTURES IN THE EARLY CHURCH 207 


ance;’” and Justin Martyr devotes one whole section 
of his great Dialogue with Trypho the Jew to proving 
that ‘‘the true spiritual Israel are we who have been 
led to God through the crucified Christ.’ But if the 
Christians are the true Israel, then the old Testament 
belongs to them. It is their book. Justin Martyr was 
led to Christianity through the study of it, and so also 
was Tatian.” Because it belongs to them, they are 
continually quoting it. Indeed the frequency with which 
the quotations occur is perhaps the most striking ex- 
ternal feature of this early literature. The writers are 
all Gentile Christians. In certain cases, they are bit- 
terly hostile to Judaism.” They are quick to resent any 
attempt to impose Jewish ideas upon Christianity.” And 
yet the sacred writings of the Jews are their most cher- 
ished possession. They are the Scriptures, and they are 
made the basis not only of ‘‘doctrine, reproof, correction, 
and instruction in righteousness’’ but also of argument. 
They are the proof that Christianity is the one and only 
true religion. Justin Martyr demonstrates to the Jews 
out of their own Scriptures that a right understanding 
of the Old Testament would force them to accept 
Christ,” and in the Apologies, he proves to the Gentiles, 
out of the Old Testament, that Christianity is as old 
as the creation and antedates all the Greek myths and 
philosophies. He displays an amazing knowledge of 
the Old Testament Scriptures, which he has acquired 





* Barn. 14: 4, 

* Dial. 11. 

” Justin, Dial. 7; Tatian, Orat. 29. 

*™ Barnabas is the most conspicuous example of this hostility, and 
yet the Old Testament plays a larger part in Barnabas’ letter than 
in any other writing of the second century except the Dialogue of 
Justin martyr. 

*Irn. ad. Magn. 10:3. “It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ 
and Judaize.” 

* This is the theme of the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. 


208 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


because he, the Greek philosopher, has become a Chris- 
tian and the Old Testament is a Christian book.” 

But the question was bound to arise, ‘‘How can men 
accept the Old Testament as a source of ‘‘truth, and 
at the same time, reject Judaism?’’ That question the 
men of the second century answered by their method 
of interpretation, and this, in turn, was conditioned by 
their theory of inspiration. 

The truth which these second century Christians 
sought in the Old Testament was not historical truth. 
They were utterly unconcerned about that. What they 
wanted was doctrinal and ethical instruction. The 
value of the Scriptures lay, for them, in their prophetic, 
doctrinal and moral content. A passage of the Old 
Testament which contained none of these elements had 
no value to them. But it was not conceivable that any 
part of the Old Testament should be valueless; there- 
fore, they must be able to find prophecy, doctrine or 
moral law everywhere in it. This was possible only by 
the use of allegory, and in the hands of a skilful exegete, 
the allegorical method of interpretation can be made to 
work as many miracles as Aaron’s rod. Thus Barnabas 
knows that Abraham was ‘‘looking forward in the Spirit 
to Jesus,’’ when he circumcised the 318 members of his 
household (Gen. 17:23; ef. 14:14), since in his Greek 
Bible he found 318 written as TIH, and IH is the symbol 
of Jesus and T the symbol of the Cross.” Similarly, 
the prohibition against pork, in the Levitical law, means, 





* Harnack has not overstated the case when he says: “Christianity 
never was, and never became, a religion of the book, in the sense in 
which Islam is such a religion..... but the book, 7. e., in the first 
place, the Old Testament, exercised such an influence that Chris- 
tianity did come very close to becoming a religion of the book.” 
Mission und Ausbreitung, p. 204. 

USAITL Osa eas 


HOLY SCRIPTURES IN THE EARLY CHURCH = 209 


‘‘Ye shall not consort with men that are like swine.’ 
Justin Martyr is less fanciful, but finds in the fine flour 
offered in sacrifice a prophecy of the Eucharist, and in 
the twelve bells on the high priest’s robe, a prophecy 
of the twelve Apostles.” Illustrations of this sort could 
be multiplied. 

In the third century, this method of interpretation 
found in Origen its systematic expositor. He devoted 
almost a third of his greatest work, the de principics, 
to the subject of Biblical interpretation. He maintains 
that the Scriptures have a three-fold sense. The first 
is the literal, historical sense. It is the least important 
of the three and, while it serves to edify the simple, its 
chief purpose is to form a sort of protective covering 
for the higher senses. It is the body of Scripture. The 
psychic sense is the soul of Scripture. It stands midway 
between the lowest and the highest sense and is dis- 
cernible to those who have made some advance into the 
depths of Christian knowledge. The third sense is the 
pneumatic. This is the spirit of Scripture and is its 
innermost content. It is open only to the perfect Chris- 
tian. Thus body, soul and spirit are a progression from 
lower to higher, and the lower exists only for the higher. 
The historical sense of Scripture ultimately exists, 
therefore, to be the vehicle of the higher senses, and 
the psychic sense exists for the spiritual. The perfect 
understanding of Scripture is the understanding of its 
spiritual meaning, 2. e., its ‘‘hidden mysteries,’’ which 
are ‘‘wrapped up and concealed under the covering of 
some history and narrative of visible things,’’ such as 
the story of creation and the records of battles, ‘‘by 
which certain ineffable mysteries are made known to 





* Ibid. 10: 3. 
* Dial. 41, 42. 


210 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


those who know how to investigate statements of that 
Kinde. 

But Origen goes still farther. He maintains that in 
the historical narratives there are certain ‘‘impos- 
sibilities and incongruities.’’ There are records of 
‘‘things which either did not take place or could not 
take place.’’ These misstatements are not errors, in 
the ordinary sense, but are the deliberate work of the 
Spirit, who purposed by this means to force men away 
from an untenable literal interpretation of Scripture, to 
its psychic, and ultimately to its spiritual sense. The 
creation-story is a casein point. The first three ‘‘days”’ 
of creation are without a sun, and yet they have ‘‘an 
evening and a morning;’’ the first ‘‘day’’ is even sky- 
less. God is pictured as a farmer, planting trees, and 
we are told that the physical eating of a certain fruit 
brings immortality and the same kind of eating of an- 
other confers the knowledge of good and evil.” These 
statements are obviously not intended to be received 
as literal historical facts. The law of Moses commands 
impossibilities. Taken literally it requires, for example, 
that a man must spend the whole Sabbath sitting in ex- 
actly one place (Hxod. 16:29). The same reasoning 
applied to the New Testament, shows that it, too, con- 
tains statements that can never have been intended in 
a literal sense. He specifies the temptation-story and 
the commandments about plucking out the eye and cut- 
ting off the hand.” He then goes on,—‘‘It was the de- 
sign of the Holy Spirit to show that we were not to be 
edified by the letter alone, or by everything in it—a 
thing that we see to be frequently impossible and incon- 





*de prin. iv, 1, 14. 
* Ibid. 15, 16. 
* Ibid. 17, 18. 


HOLY SCRIPTURES IN THE EARLY CHURCH 211 


sistent; for in that way not only impossibilities but 
absurdities would be the result; but we are to under- 
stand that certain occurrences were interwoven in the 
visible history, which, when considered and understood 
in their inner meaning, give forth a law which is ad- 
vantageous to men and worthy of God,’’ Nevertheless, 
with these reservations touching the things that are 
manifestly impossible, Origen believes that ‘‘the truth 
of the history ought to be preserved in the majority of 
instances.’ 

This theory of interpretation was not the creation of 
Origen’s own mind. It runs all the way back across the 
second century, to the New Testament itself. We find 
it, for example, in Paul’s allegorical use of the Hagar- 
story (Gal. 4), of the rock that followed Israel (I Cor. 
10:4), and of the veil of Moses (II Cor. 3:13 ff.). On 
the other hand, it is also true that this method of in- 
terpretation was not at all confined to Christian stu- 
dents of the Scriptures. Philo had used it to derive 
his religious philosophy from the Old Testament, and 
the Greek exegetes had used it in their attempts to read 
moral and religious content into the heathen myths. It 
was in fact, the ‘‘scientific’? method by which all inter- 
preters of sacred books arrived at their results, and 
the Christians differed from the others chiefly in the 
greater sobriety with which they used it. For a scien- 
tific Christian thinker to have used the Scriptures 
otherwise, would have been impossible, just as impos- 
sible as it is for a scientific Christian thinker of today 
to use their method. Nevertheless, it was this method, 
which resolves facts into symbols, and cares little for 
historical veracity, everything for spiritual coherence, 





* Ibid. 19. 


212 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


that was the precedent condition under which the anci- 
ent Church accepted the Old Testament as a source of 
truth. 

This method of interpretation rests upon a belief that 
the Scriptures are inspired. This belief was generally 
held, but was not, at first, worked out into a theory of 
inspiration. It was almost tacitly assumed that ‘‘holy 
men spake from God as they were moved by the Holy 
Ghost.’’ Yet the assumption was not entirely tacit. 
Clement introduces a quotation from Exodus with the 
words,—‘‘The ministers of the grace of God spake by 
the Holy Spirit,’’ and a quotation from Jeremiah with 
the statement,—‘‘For the Holy Spirit says.’’’ Barnabas 
uses the formula,—‘‘The Lord says in the prophet.’” 
In one place after another the Apostolic Fathers make 
use of the regular New Testament formulas, ‘‘It is 
written,’’ ‘‘The Scripture says,’’ or ‘‘It says.’ They 
are quoting inspired writings without defining the 
nature or method of the inspiration. 

The theory of inspiration begins with the Greek 
apologists, Justin Martyr and Athenagoras. Justin 
says,—‘‘For neither by nature, nor by human concep- 
tion is it possible for men to know things so great and 
so divine, but by the gift which then descended from 
above upon the holy men, who had no need... . but 
to present themselves clean to the energy of the Divine 
Spirit, in order that the divine plectrum itself, descend- 
ing from heaven and using righteous men like a harp or 
lyre, might reveal to us the knowledge of things divine 
and heavenly.’’ ‘‘These taught us nothing from their 
own human conceptions, but from the gift vouchsafed to 





*TI Clem. 8:1; 138: 1. 
* Barn: 9% 1 ef) 1231; 
* Possibly, “He says;” the Greek verb has no expressed subject. 


HOLY SCRIPTURES IN THE EARLY CHURCH 213 


them by God from above.” Athenagoras is even more ex- 
plicit. He declares that the prophets, ‘‘lifted in ecstasy 
above the natural operation of their minds by the im- 
pulses of the Divine Spirit, uttered the things with which 
they were inspired, the Spirit using them as a flute- 
player breathes into a flute.’ In this theory, then, the 
recipient of the inspiration is entirely passive. He must 
be clean in soul, in order to receive the heavenly mes- 
sage, but he needs neither previous knowledge of their 
subject-matter nor literary skill to record it. All that is 
necessary is given by the Spirit. The message, when re- 
ceived, is therefore a word of God and the prophet is no 
more than the medium through which it is passed on to 
other men. Even those words of the prophet in which he 
seems to be speaking in his own person are, in reality, 
words of the Spirit.” 

Such a theory was no more original with the Chris- 
tians than was the allegorical method of interpretation. 
There is no evidence in the New Testament of any such 
view of the inspiration of the Old. The nearest thing 
to it is that immediate inspiration which John claims 
in the Apocalypse and Hermas in the Shepherd.” But 
we do find this theory highly developed among the 
Alexandrian Jews, where Philo was its most distin- 
guished representative, and where it seems to have been 
borrowed from the Greeks, especially from Plato.” To be 





* Cohort. ad Graec. 8, 10, cf. Apol. 1, 31, 36. 

* Legatio, 9. 

* Justin. Apol. I, 36 ff. 

* See Vis. II, 1; Mand. XI, 7 ff. Cf. Weinel, Wirkungen d. Geistes 
u. d. Geister, pp. 201 ff. 

4 Whether the mantic oracles had any influence upon this Alex- 
andrian theory is a matter of dispute. On the whole subject see San- 
day, Inspiration (Bampton lectures for 1893, pp. 72 ff ; Bethune- 
Baker, “Intro. to Early Hist. of Christian Doctrine, DDa4outt.: 
Cremer, PRE,’ IX, pp. 185 ff. 


214 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


sure, there is one all-important point in which Justin’s 
theory differed from that of Philo. By Justin the in- 
spirer of the Old Testament Scriptures is identified 
with Christ. As the Logos, Christ is the active agent 
of inspiration. However often Justin refers to ‘‘the 
Spirit of prophecy’’ or ‘‘the prophetic Spirit”’ or ‘‘the 
Divine Spirit’’ or ‘‘the Holy Spirit,’’ it is always the 
Logos who is the source of truth and knowledge, and 
no sharp distinction is maintained between the Logos 
and the Spirit. Indeed, it is scarcely too much to say 
that the Spirit is only Justin’s name for the inspiring 
Logos. Except for this ascription of the work of in- 
spiration to Christ, the theory of Justin and of Athen- 
agoras is essentially that of Philo. 

Besides the dying form of direct inspiration, these 
second century Christians, therefore, continued to be- 
lieve that they had a source of truth in the Old Testa- 
ment, which was inspired by God and opened the fulness 
of its meaning to those who were able to interpret it by 
means of allegory. 

But these were not the only sources of truth. The 
words of Jesus continued to be the supreme authority, 
and along with them went the words of the Apostles, 
which were steadily taking a higher and higher place. 
These words were embodied in written documents, and 
in the second century, collections of these documents 
were treasured in the churches and read at the services, 
along with the Old Testament. We are not here con- 
cerned with the history of the New Testament Canon 
or with the question what books were included in it and 
why. On this point it is enough to say that there is 
evidence, at the beginning of the second century for the 





“Even on this point the deviation is not so great, for Philo, too, 
had a Logos-theory. 


HOLY SCRIPTURES IN THE EARLY CHURCH 215 


existence and use of nearly all of our canonical 
books; that these books were generally accepted as au- 
thoritative in matters of Christian faith and life; and 
that there was a fringe of other books in existence, 
some of which did, and some of which did not, ulti- 
mately find a place in the Canon. It is true enough that 
in the second century the Church did not have the New 
Testament; it is also untrue, for every church did have 
a New Testament, though it was not, in every case, 
identical with the New Testament which another church” 
accepted. 

Concerning these New Testament books there was no 
theory of inspiration. In that respect, they were still 
looked upon as different from the Old Testament. They 
were plain and simple narratives of fact, or statements 
of truth. There was no difficulty in interpreting them. 
There was about them nothing of the cryptic character 
that was universally thought to belong to sacred writ- 
ings. And yet the Apostolic Fathers and the Greek 
apologists were continually quoting them. The quota- 
tions are in many cases without acknowledgment; the 
authors simply slip into their own text phrases caught 
out of some New Testament book. Occasionally, in- 
deed, there is an exception, and Barnabas once intro- 
duces a word of Christ with the formula, ‘‘It is writ- 
ten;’”” but he does it only once, and none of the other 
writers follows him. Justin Martyr reproduces prac- 
tically the whole synoptic tradition of the life and teach- 
ing of Jesus, except for the parables, but quotes the 
words of Jesus with only the rarest reference to the 
book from which he has taken them. The Epistles are 
alluded to in much the same way. The teachings which 





“ Barnabas 4: 14. 


216 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


they contain are those which the Christians receive, and 
the way of life which they prescribe is the way that 
Christians follow. Peter and Paul are reverenced as 
men whose words have especial weight, because they 
were Apostles. 

Moreover, it is the New Testament tradition, the new 
truth that has come with Jesus Christ, that gives all 
of these writers their key to the Old Testament. In 
Christ Himself, in His life and work and teaching, they 
see the fulfilment of the Old Testament. It becomes 
all prophecy, and if the prophecy does not lie on the 
surface, if the Scripture seems only to tell a story of 
the past, if it seems only to give laws for the ordering 
of the life of men, that is merely an indication that they 
must get below the surface of it, knowing that when 
they have penetrated into its depths they will find in 
every word the Christ, whom the ‘‘prophetic Spirit’’ 
has wrapped up and concealed in language that seems 
to have no relation to Him. 

And yet while the New Testament thus gave them 
their key to the Old, it was not yet a sacred book, like 
the Old. It did not become so until the Christians them- 
selves had become divided in opinion and the Church 
had been forced into its great battles with heresy. 


Ill. Tue Acs or tur Anti-Gnostic Fatruers 
(150-250 A. D.) 


The first great doctrinal crisis within the Gentile- 
Christian churches was precipitated by the growth of 
Gnosticism. The battle against the Gnostic teaching 
lasted for a full century. While it was still in prog- 
ress, while, indeed, it was only getting fairly under 
way, Marcion began to preach in Rome a Reformed 


HOLY SCRIPTURES IN THE EARLY CHURCH 217 


Christianity that was not Gnostic, though it had cer- 
tain Gnostic traits. Before Gnosticism and Marcionism 
were fully overcome, Montanism” had to be reckoned 
with. These three heresies were not the only ones that 
had to be resisted as the second century passed over 
into the third, but none of the others had the same last- 
ing influence on Christian thought and Christian insti- 
tutions that the three had, which have been named. For 
these three dealt with primary things. They challenged 
the total conception of Christianity that was current in 
the churches, and declared it fundamentally wrong. 
They proclaimed a religious revolution, and on no single 
point were they more revolutionary than on that of the 
source of truth. 

Gnosticism is really a group-name. It includes many 
varieties of doctrine. But all of the various systems of 
teaching that are grouped under the name had certain 
things in common. For one thing, they are all con- 
cerned primarily ‘with doctrine, for Gnosticism was, 
from first to last, a theology. They found this theology 
in the books of our New Testament, though not in all 
of them, and those books which they accepted as author- 
itative they interpreted in such a way as to rob them 
of their literal meaning. Thus they used the Gospels 
and the apostolic writings in a manner analogous to 
that in which the Christians were already using the Old 
Testament. The allegorical method could find Christ 
and Christianity anywhere from Genesis to Malachi; 
the Gnostics could find the Gospels, and especially the 
Fourth Gospel, full of personifications of abstract 
ideas. Seeking to make Christianity a universal re- 
ligion, they endeavored to tear it loose from its his- 





“See above, p. 205. 


218 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


torical roots. It was to be stripped of its historical 
context, and set forth in the circles of the enlightened 
as timeless, abstract truth. Within the teaching of 
Jesus and the apostles this truth was concealed under 
coverings which the simple-minded might take as lit- 
eral statements, but which the Gnostic understood to be 
figures of speech. The Gnostic understood this because 
he had the key, which had been transmitted in a secret 
oral tradition.” As for the Old Testament, the Gnostics 
treated it variously. One, at least, of the Gnostic 
schools found some truth in it;* others rejected it en- 
tirely. If writers like Justin Martyr or Origen are to 
be blamed for their handling of the Old Testament; 
if their allegories make all things possible and warp 
and twist the clear meaning of the Jewish Scriptures, 
they must at least be credited with a sane use of Chris- 
tian tradition. When they studied the Old Testament, 
their heads might be in clouds as dense as those that 
covered Sinai, but their feet were on solid ground. The 
Gnostics, on the contrary, were always in the air. Start- 
ing with a group of abstract ideas derived from heathen 
speculation, they attempted to read these ideas into 
the Christian record. Thus the record became the mere 
vehicle of these ideas, and its literal truth a matter of 
indifference. By the same method of treatment the 
Greek myths could be imagined to convey the same 
body of timeless truth as the Gospel of John. 

In the teaching of Marcion the problem of the source 
of truth and the authority of Scripture assumed a more 
acute form.” For Marcion endeavored to outlaw the 





“It may have been reduced to writing by Valentinus. See Zahn, 
Gesch. d. N. T. Kanons, 1, 748 ff. 

“The Valentinians; cf. Zahn, o. c. 1, 730 ff. 

“The most complete recent study is that of Harnack, Marcion; 
Das Evangelium vom Fremden Gott, 1921. 


HOLY SCRIPTURES IN THE EARLY CHURCH 219 


Old Testament and revise the New. To him Judaism 
and Christianity seemed two altogether unrelated and 
utterly contradictory religions. The Old Testament is a 
genuine revelation, but it is the revelation of the god 
of this world, the creator, who is not the God and 
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. The creator-god is 
righteous, but not loving. The Law is the revelation 
of his will; the prophecies have reference to a messiah 
whom he is to send. The whole sphere of his activity 
is confined to this world. His kingdom is an earthly 
kingdom. If we would know the religion of the creator- 
god, we must seek it in the Old Testament, which is to 
be interpreted ‘literally. Christ, on the contrary, is 
the revealer of a God who was unknown until He came. 
He is the God of love and mercy, the good God, and he 
demands, not obedience, but faith. Law has no place 
in the Gospel, or before it or beside it. Nevertheless, 
the Christian writings contain strong Jewish elements. 
They connect Jesus with the Jewish law, the Jewish 
prophets and the Jewish god. They represent the life 
and teaching of Jesus as related at almost every point 
to the Old Testament religion. Marcion disdains to ex- 
plain these things away by the use of allegory. He 
roundly declares them to be corruptions of Christianity, 
introduced by disciples who did not understand their 
own Master. Paul alone understood Jesus, but Paul’s 
teaching has been corrupted too; even the text of his 
letters has been tampered with. Believing that Chris- 
tianity is a religion of God’s love and man’s faith, 
Marcion, therefore, proceeds to a revision and correc- 
tion of the Christian documents; he reconstructs them, 
in order that they may be a pure channel of Christian 
revelation. 


220 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


Thus Marcion and the Gnostics raised the question, 
‘¢What is authentic Christianity.’’ The answering of 
that question, the refutation of Marcionism and 
Gnosticism and the exposition of true Christian doc- 
trine, was the task that was assumed by a group of 
Christian writers who lived and worked between 150 
and 250 A. D. Their answers necessarily revolved 
around the authority of Scripture, for it was this that 
the heretics had called in question. The Church came 
out of this controversy with a well-defined doctrine of 
authority. The two most significant members of this 
group are Ireneus and Tertullian. 

Treneus wrote one great work that has come down 
to us. It bears the title Against Heresies. It is a 
thorough discussion of the questions at issue between 
traditional Christianity and Valentinian Gnosticism, 
with some attention given to other Gnostic sects and 
teachers, and to Marcion. He grounds his defence of 
traditional Christianity on the contention that it ‘is 
apostolic. It seems to him self-evident that apostolic 
Christianity must be authentic. To discover this au- 
thentic Christianity, therefore, it is only necessary to 
go to the writings of the Apostles. In the apostolic 
Scriptures, whether Gospels or Epistles, Ireneus is 
thoroughly at home. He uses them with telling effect, 
to refute the heretics and establish his own doctrines. 
They are for him the source of truth. 

“<The tradition from the Apostles exists in the churches and is 
permanent among us. Let us therefore go back to that revelation 
which is taken from the scriptures of those who wrote the Gospel, 
viz. the Apostles.” “Jesus Christ is the truth and there is no lie in 
Him, and the Apostles, too, are disciples of the truth, and are free 
from any falsehood” (III, 5, 1). “A sound mind will eagerly 
meditate on those things which God has placed within the power 
of mankind. ... These things are such as fall under our observation 


and are clearly and unambiguously set forth in the sacred scrip- 
tures” (II, 21, 1). 


HOLY SCRIPTURES IN THE EARLY CHURCH 221 


This does not mean that Ireneus has discarded the 
Old Testament. As witnesses to the truth of his own 
doctrine, he cites ‘‘the preaching of the Apostles, the 
teaching of the Lord, the announcements of the prophets, 
the dictation of the Apostles and the ministrations of 
the law’’ (11, 35, 4). He declares his doctrine to be 
‘‘the preaching of the church, which the prophets pro- 
claimed, but which Christ brought to perfection, and 
the Apostles handed down.’’ Thus Ireneus brings the 
Old Testament into the same category with the apos- 
tolic writings. These Scriptures ‘‘are perfect, because 
they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit’’ 
(11, 28, 2). Nevertheless, there is a difference between 
the Old and New Testaments. The Old is accredited 
by the New. Only because the Old Testament ‘‘tes- 
tified of Christ’’ can we be sure that the author of its 
Scriptures is the Father of Jesus Christ’’ (IV, 10, 1). 
Here is no a priori doctrine of inspiration, such as we 
found in Justin and Athenagoras. It is the content of 
the sacred writings, not the method of their delivery, 
which marks them as divine. In the relation of the 
old and new covenants Ireneus finds a progress from 
the less to the more complete. There are differences in 
the steps which lead men to God, but there is ‘‘one sal- 
vation and one God’’ (IV, 9, 3). 

No writer before Ireneus had laid such emphasis on 
the apostolic writings. He actually reverses the pro- 
cedure of the earlier fathers. They interpreted the 
sacred book of the Church, which was the Old Testa- 
ment, by the body of Christian truth. They found this 
truth in the apostolic tradition, but the apostolic tra- 
dition as a book they placed on a lower plane than the 
Old Testament as a book. Irenzxus, on the contrary finds 
his supreme authority in the book of the New Testa- 


222 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


ment, and by that book he determines his attitude to- 
ward the book of the Old Testament. Thus the New 
Testament Scriptures have not only moved up to a 
place of equal authority with the older collection, but 
have gone beyond them. Thenceforth, Christian the- 
ology was to be recognized as New Testament theology. 

In the formation of his theology, Ireneus does not 
resort to the method of allegory. His method of inter- 
pretation is fundamentally historical. He has seen the 
havoc that the Gnostics have wrought with their al- 
legories, the absurdities they have based upon Scripture 
by interpreting it as ‘‘parable.’’ He recognizes the 
danger that is inherent in the allegorical method, the 
danger that no two interpreters will agree. In place 
of the allegory, then, he puts a clearly defined canon of 
interpretation. ‘‘The entire Scriptures, the prophets 
and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously and 
harmoniously understood by all.’’ This clear and un- 
ambiguous statement of truth, he then goes on to say, 
must become the key to ‘the interpretation of those 
statements which are intended as parables.” 

Behind Ireneus’ estimate of the New Testament, 
there is, however, a large assumption that must not. be 
overlooked. It is the assumption that whatever comes 
from the Apostles is authoritative. But this assumption 
influences other of his opinions also. For there are in 
the Church other things that were regarded as apos- 
tolic, and if authority is inseparable from apostolic 
origin, then these other things, too, must have the same 
authority as the apostolic writings. This line of rea- 
soning appears in Ireneus’ use of tradition. ‘‘The 
Church, though dispersed throughout the world, has 





i Adv. Her. II, 27. This in sharp contrast with the view of Origen 
above. : 


HOLY SCRIPTURES IN THE EARLY CHURCH = 223 


received from the Apostles and their disciples this 
faith?” (1/10, 1ct.eV;) 20,'1).) Che staithi is then 
defined in a paragraph which has the form of a creed. 
Then the author goes on, ‘‘The Church believes these 
things as though she had but one soul and one and the 
same heart; and she proclaims them and teaches them 
and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as though 
she possessed only one mouth.’’ (ibid. 2). This ‘‘apos- 
tolic faith’’ is not the same thing as the apostolic Scrip- 
tures. The ‘‘faith’’ and the Scriptures are two things, 
not one, though both come from the same source and 
therefore neither can contradict the other. But when 
two different things, which cannot conflict, seem to be 
divergent, the seeming contradiction must be removed 
by means of interpretation. The question, ‘‘ Which of the 
two is the supreme authority?’’ must be answered by the 
other question, ‘‘ Which gives the standard of interpreta- 
tion?’’ Are we to interpret the ‘‘faith’’ by the Scrip- 
tures, or the Scriptures by the ‘‘faith?’’ IJrenzxus 
chooses the latter alternative. All valid interpretation 
of the Scriptures must be within the ‘‘apostolie faith.’’ 
Man’s intelligence and skill, however, great it may be, 
dare not go beyond the faith of the Church. It may 
investigate and search and interpret—and Ireneus him- 
self made full use of this permission—but only with the 
purpose that the results of this work may ‘‘be accom- 
modated to the general scheme of the faith.’? Thus the - 
first Christian writer to raise the New Testament 
Scriptures above the Old, is also the first to 
place the tradition of the Church beside them. In- 
deed, it may be asked whether tradition has not the 
place of higher authority. It has been said of Charle- 
magne that ‘‘he tied the knot which the whole Middle 
Ages struggled to unloose.’’ It may be said with equal 


224 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


truth that Ireneus tied the knot which the Reformation 
had to cut. 

Ireneus tied the knot, and Tertullian drew it tight. 
He was the first important writer to use the Latin lan- 
guage, and the Western Church has never got entirely 
away from the influence of his formulations. The 
whole structure of Latin theology was erected on the 
foundations which he laid and was built, very largely, 
out of his materials. Differing widely from Irenezus 
upon certain ‘points of theology and possessed of a 
different spirit, he, nevertheless, agreed entirely with 
his older cotemporary in his view of authority. In 
Tertullian’s writings that view appears in the most 
pointed form of statement, for Tertullian had the 
lawyer’s mind, which tends to overstatement and loves 
to press every point against an opponent. 

With Irenzeus, he identifies authority and apos- 
tolicity. In his great book, Against Marcion, he states 
his case as follows,—‘‘I affirm that Marcion’s gospel is 
adulterated; Marcion, that mine is. Now what is to 
settle the point for us, except the principle of time, 
which rules that the authority shall lie with that which 
is more ancient? ... For, inasmuch as falsehood is the 
falsification of truth, it must needs be that truth pre- 
cedes error’’ (c. Marc. IV, 4). This principle, applied 
to the matter in hand, establishes the authority of apos- 
tolic truth. ‘‘That is from the beginning which has 
the Apostles for its authors’”’ (ibid. 5). All that Tertul- 
lian needs to prove, therefore, is that ‘‘that which comes 
down from the Apostles has been kept sacrosanct in the 
churches of the Apostles.’’ Thus the idea of apostolicity 
is laid at the foundation of the argument. Tertullian’s 
appeal to the Scriptures, then, is only one form of the 
general appeal to apostolic authority. 


HOLY SCRIPTURES IN THE EARLY CHURCH = 225 


In his de praescriptions, Tertullian’s view of the 
authority of Scripture is set forth in general ternis, 
for in this work he is not discussing any one heresy, but 
heresy in general. The argument is this,—The Chris- 
tians have a rule of faith. It is embodied in a form of 
words (c. 13), and was taught by Christ. Within the 
faith thus formulated, Christians are free to seek for 
truth, but nothing which impairs the rule of faith can 
be received; it cannot even be a subject of inquiry. 
Until a man accepts the rule, then, he cannot be con- 
sidered a Christian at all and cannot say what is or 
what is not Christian. That rules out the heretics, for 
the heretics are, by definition, those who deny, or ‘‘im- 
pair,’’ the rule. The heretics dare not quote the Scrip- 
tures to support their opinions, for only those who have 
the rule of faith possess any right to the Scriptures. 
There are, then, two channels through which apostolic 
truth has come down to us. They are the Scriptures 
and the rule. In Tertullian’s view, they are équally 
authentic. This is the identical thought that we have 
found in Ireneus, and, like Ireneus, Tertullian seems 
to give prior authority to the rule, for it is the rule by 
which the Scriptures are to be interpreted.“ 

But the authenticity of the rule is guaranteed by an- 
other apostolic ordinance. The Apostles organized 
churches, which are ‘‘wombs and sources of faith’’ (ce. 
21). From these original churches ‘‘all the other 
churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the 
faith and the seeds of doctrine’’ (c. 20). Therefore 
‘fall doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches 
must be reckoned for the truth, as undoubtedly contain- 





“On the rule of faith see especially the valuable discussions of 
Seeberg, Dogmengeschichte, I, 285, and Zeitsch. f. Kirchengesch., XL 
(1922), 1 ff., with the literature there cited. 


226 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


ing that which the churches received from the Apostles”’ 
(c. 21, ef. c. 26). It is, therefore, the organized Church 
which guarantees the authenticity of the rule, and the 
acceptance of the rule confers the right to possess the 
Scriptures. Three things are apostolic, the churches, 
the rule and the Scriptures. Because they are apostolic 
they are original, and because original, they are 
authoritative. 

The connection of authority with apostolicity would 
seem, logically, to exclude the Old Testament, but 
Tertullian does not draw this conclusion. Throughout 
the book against Marcion he contends that the Creator 
and the Father are one and the same God. In the 
Apologeticus, written for heathen readers, he definitely 
claims the Jewish Scriptures as the possession of 
Christians, though he makes far smaller use of the 
‘‘proof from prophecy’’ than had Justin Martyr. All 
men have some knowledge of God, either from the 
creation or from the testimonium animae naturaliter 
christianae (ce. 17). But God has ‘‘added a written 
revelation.’? This was the work of chosen preachers, 
‘‘men abundantly endowed with the Holy Spirit.’’ 
‘‘“These preachers are called prophets, from the office, 
which belongs to them, of predicting the future. Their 
words, as well as the miracles which they performed 
that men might have faith in their divine authority, we 
still have, in the literary treasures which they have 
left. ... Whoever gives ear will find God in them; who- 
ever takes pains to believe will understand’’ (c. 18). 
Tertullian offers to prove that these Scriptures are 
divine. He makes his offer good by citing the great 
number of Old Testament predictions that have been 
fulfilled. ‘‘While we suffer calamities, we read of them 
in the Scriptures,’’ and ‘‘the truth of a prophecy is the 


HOLY SCRIPTURES IN THE EARLY CHURCH = 227 


demonstration that it is from above.’’ The fulfilment 
of prophecy is, therefore, the basis of the belief that 
the Scriptures are inspired (c. 20). Paul was ‘‘guided 
by the same Spirit by whom all divine Scripture, in- 
cluding the book of Genesis, was drawn up’’ (de orat., 
22). 

Tertullian, like Ireneus, makes relatively little of 
the fact of inspiration. In his later years he was a 
Montanist, and the Montanistic belief in the continuance 
of inspiration may have influenced, to some degree, his 
earlier thought on this subject. At all events, the 
antiquity of the Scriptures seems to play a larger part 
in his thinking than does their inspiration. But this 
is only apparently the case, for the notion of inspira- 
tion is involved in that of apostolic origin. The Apostles 
had the Spirit, and whatever comes from them has the 
authority of inspiration. Thus the Scriptures and the 
rule are both inspired, and in a certain sense the or- 
ganized Church also. On this point Tertullian was in 
agreement with Ireneus’ words,—‘‘Where the Church 
is, there is the Spirit of God, and where the Spirit of 
God, there the Church and every grace; but the Spirit 
ie trot? 

With the acceptance by the Church of these views of 
Scripture, the foundations were cut out from under the 
Gnostic and the Marcionitic heresies. The principle 
was established, ‘‘Whatever is apostolic is Christian; 
whatever is not apostolic is not Christian; between two 
apostolic traditions there can be no conflict.’? As ap- 
plied to the Scriptures, that meant a sifting of the tra- 
dition, and a disappearance from the Church’s use of 
those Scriptures, like The Shepherd and the Epistle of 





*@ Adv. Her. III. 24, 1. 


228 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


Clement, which could not claim apostolic authorship. 
It became important to know the name of the writer of 
a given book, and the literary history of the New Testa- 
ment writings became a matter of vital interest. But 
with this emphasis on the authority of the apostolic 
authority of Scripture, there came, of necessity, a dis- 
trust of immediate inspiration. New prophets were 
not needed for all that the Spirit wished to reveal 
was already contained in the apostolic writings. 
Thenceforth the claim to be inspired was regarded as 
denial of apostolic authority. 

No less significant and influential than the views of 
Ireneus and Tertullian, just described, were those of 
Tertullian’s younger co-temporary, Origen. He was a 
man of different training from either of his two great 
predecessors, for he was raised in the philosophical 
tradition of Alexandria, and shares with his teacher, 
Clement, the honor of being the formulator of early 
Alexandrian Christianity. With this training, and with 
a most unusual intellectual gift, he became the first 
great scholar of Christian history. His First Prin- 
ciples is the first treatise in dogmatics, but his chosen 
field of labor was the exegesis of the Scriptures. The 
authority of the Scriptures is fundamental to all of his 
thinking. In the Preface to the First Principles, he 
states it thus,—‘‘All who believe and are assured that 
grace and truth were obtained through Jesus Christ, 
and who know Christ to be the truth..... derive the 
knowledge which incites men to a good and happy life 
from no other source than from the very words and 
teaching of Christ. And by the words of Christ we do 
not mean only those which He spake when He became 
man and tabernacled in the flesh; for before that time, 
Christ, the Word of God, was in Moses and the prophets. 


HOLY SCRIPTURES IN THE EARLY CHURCH 229 


For without the Word of God, how could they have been 
able to prophesy of Christ? And..... it would not be 
difficult to show, in proof of this statement, out of the 
Holy Scriptures, how Moses or the prophets both spake 
and performed all that they did through being filled 
with the Spirit of Christ. ... Moreover, that after His 
ascension into heaven He spake in His Apostles, is shown 
by Paul in these words: ‘Or do you seek a proof of 
Christ, who speaketh in me?’ ”’ 

Here is a clearly defined doctrine of the authority of 
Scripture, based upon a theory of inspiration. The 
theory assumes that Christ is pre-existent. He is the 
Word of God, and therefore the agent through whont 
the Father works upon the world and the mediator of 
the whole divine revelation, an office which He did not 
surrender when He ceased to ‘tabernacle in the flesh.’’ 
This Christ is the author of the Scriptures, and since 
they come from Him they must be the truth. To be 
sure, Origen does not distinguish sharply between the 
work of Christ and of the Holy Spirit in inspiration. 
This is due to an inherited unclearness, which we find 
quite as markedly in Justin Martyr. The agent of in- 
spiration is at one time Christ, at another the Holy 
Spirit, but the Scriptures are His work.” This doctrine 
of inspiration was to Origen an article of faith, and 
primary to all discussions of Christian truth. It ap- 
plies to the Old Testament, as well as to the New. ‘‘It 
was not only with regard to these Scriptures which were 
composed down to the advent of Christ that the Holy 





° Cf. de prin. IV, 9.—‘Who believe the Holy Scriptures to be no 
human composition, but to be written by inspiration of the Holy 
Ghost and to be transmitted and entrusted to us by the will of God 
the Father, through His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ.” The 
same unclearness is found in Clement of Alexandria, ‘We have, as 
the origin of the teaching, the Lord, through the prophets, through 
the Gospel, and through the blessed apostles.” (Strom. VII, 16). 


230 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


Spirit thus dealt; but, as being one and the same Spirit, 
and proceeding from one God, He dealt in the same way 
with the evangelists and Apostles. For even those nar- 
ratives which He inspired them to write were not com- 
posed without that wisdom of His, the nature of which 
we have explained’’ (zbid. 16). 

The fact of inspiration is proved by the fulfilment 
of prophecy. ‘‘The divinity and inspiration both of the 
predictions of the prophets and the law of Moses have 
been clearly revealed and confirmed, especially since 
the advent of Christ into the world.’’ But there is also 
another proof. The Scriptures bear witness to their 
own origin. ‘‘If anyone consider the words of the 
prophets with all the zeal and reverence which they de- 
serve, it is certain, that, in the perusal and careful ex- 
amination thus given them, he will feel his senses 
touched by a divine breath, and will acknowledge that 
the words which he reads were no human utterances, 
but the language of God; and from his own emotions 
he will feel that these books were the composition of no 
human skill, nor of any mortal eloquence, but, so to 
speak, of a style that is divine’’ (de prin. IV, 6). The 
authority of the Scriptures, then, is the authority of 
God. 

In spite of the fact that there is thus one supreme and 
authoritative source of truth, it remains true that all 
Christians do not agree. To settle these disagreements, 
Origen believes that the apostolic tradition is final. ‘‘As 
the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly suc- 
cession from the Apostles, and remaining in the churches 
to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be 
accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ec- 
clesiastical and apostolic tradition’’ (de prin. Pref.). 
But this tradition is not entirely adequate. Stated in 


HOLY SCRIPTURES IN THE EARLY CHURCH 231 


modern terms, it does not constitute an entire and well- 
rounded world-view. ‘‘The holy Apostles delivered 
themselves with the utmost clearness on certain points 
. .. leaving, however, the grounds of their statements 
to be examined into ... while on other points they 
merely stated the fact that things were so, keeping 
silence as to the manner or origin of their existence’’ 
(ibid.). Thus, within the apostolic tradition, there is 
room for progress, though all such progress is condi- 
tional upon the student’s willingness to accept the 
authority of Scripture and upon his ability to under- 
stand the Scriptures. The latter point is as important 
as the former, for Origen regarded the ability to in- 
terpret Scripture as a special gift of God, a kind of 
charism. 

Origen’s theory of interpretation has already been 
described,” but it must here be noted that that theory 
hangs closely to the doctrine of inspiration which he 
holds. Every word& of Scripture is, by hypothesis, a 
word of God, but these words of God do not always 
make sense: they contain ‘‘not only absurdities, but im- 
possibilities’? (de prin. IV. 18); and yet they must be 
true. The only possible method in such eases is that 
of allegory, for the language must have an inner mean- 
ing that is true, even if the literal meaning has to be 
discarded. To discover that inner meaning, one must 
possess the necessary special gift: he must be a Chris- 
tian of a higher sort, a true gnostic. 

Here then we have a doctrine of the authority of 
Scripture that differs sharply from that of Ireneus and 
Tertullian. To them authority and apostolicity were 
inseparable. They connect all authority with the his- 





See above, p. 209. 


232 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 


toric Christ. Go back along the line of history, and 
when you have reached Christ, you have reached the 
truth. But Christ is known through his witnesses, who 
were endowed with His Spirit. Whatever they have 
told us, whether in Scriptures which they wrote, or in 
oral statements that others may have written down, 
that is Christian truth. Even the Old Testament de- 
rives its value for the Christian only through its con- 
nection with the truth which they taught. That truth, 
both in the form of Scripture and in the form of tra- 
dition, has been placed in the custody of an historical 
institution. That was the doctrine that the Western 
Church received. 

Origen sets the whole doctrine in a different light. 
Not apostolicity, but inspiration is the foundation of 
the authority of Scripture; not the historical Christ, 
but the pre-existent and exalted Christ. ‘This trans- 
cendent Logos spoke the words of Scripture, through 
His Spirit, to the men who wrote them down. Their 
content, therefore, musi be timeless as the Spirit; their 
real meaning must, in the end, prove to be abstract 
truth, which can be reached only by discarding literal, 
and adopting figurative, interpretations. Thus the way 
is open for Hellenistic thought to pour into the Scrip- 
tures, and the Scriptures can be made to speak of all 
the remote abstractions of Greek philosophy, of ‘‘es- 
sences’’ and ‘‘natures’’ and ‘‘persons,’’ With all of 
the abuses to which it was subject, Tertullian’s way was 
better, for despite its exaltation of tradition, it made 
a literal and historical interpretation of the Scriptures 
possible. Origen outlawed that interpretation when he 
declared that every word of Scripture, genealogies and 
accounts of wars included, was a word of God, a vehicle 
of spiritual truth. 


HOLY SCRIPTURE IN THE EARLY CHURCH 233 


These, then, are the views of the authority of Holy 
Scripture held in the early Church. They form the 
basis of all later developments in the doctrine of Holy 
Scripture, and in all these later developments the in- 
fluence of one or another of them can be traced. Tertul- 
lian’s theory ultimately produced the doctrine of the 
Church of Rome. The view of Irenzeus reappears, in 
its essential features, in the doctrine of the Protestant 
Reformation. His strong accent on historicity and on 
content as the basis of authority, and his insistence that 
the Scriptures are self-interpreting, find an echo in the 
language of Luther. The view of Origen, with its roots 
deep in a theory of inspiration that is, in the last 
analysis, purely mechanical, became, in the hands of the 
Protestant scholastics, a powerful logical weapon with 
which to combat the Roman theory, derived from 
Tertullian, that the organized Church has the sole right 
to interpret Scripture, and is itself inspired. 














ibrari 


18 


ton 


141 


il 
75 ue 





Bat de 
45, ay 
Ue 





LLL 


Ze 


LZ 


L 


t ANY Sat NS 

Ni SS ~ . AN SS 
WN 
WY 
\ 


\S A SY 
x IY SS 
\ \\ WN 
NS \\ S 





